Podium Reconfigured Re-thinking Current Building Typologies of Vancouver to Propose a Diverse Mixed-Use Structure.
Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York.
Abstract The contemporary city center is now categorized by the podium tower typology. The main purpose of these towers is densification and proximity to an urban lifestyle. Many would argue that even though this is the goal of the podium tower, it hardly reaches such conclusions. The high rise towers on fixed grids tend to isolate connections between neighbors, while also removing the human scale between towers. Urban sprawl is the consequence of this when people preferred the amenities of the suburban. Even Jan Gehl admits, “No basis for concluding directly from such examples that contact and close ties between neighbors develop more or less automatically, solely on the basis of certain definite building forms.” Yet he also posits
that “Design that is conducive to such interaction will, however, encourage it.” 1 Homogeneous urban form spreads across Vancouver even whilst harboring diverse cultural potential. This research investigates the density, scale, and quality of living in the modern city and intends to provoke a discussion on how architecture can play an integral role in densification of cities.
1. Gehl, Jan. Life Between Buildings; Using Public Space, pg. 53.
III
Borrett, Mathew. Drawings Done in Ink and Pencil.
Table of Contents VIII
List of Figures
XV
Preface
1
Chapter One - Cities
3 5 7 19 31 35
Settlement, Home Urbanization Paris - Dispersed Dubai - Centralized Inside vs. Outside Defined vs. Ambiguous
39
Chapter Two - Vancouver
41 43 45 47 49 51 53
Liveable City Vancouverism Downtown Concord Pacific Dubai Marina Trinity Uptown Criticism
57
Chapter Three - Typology
59 61 63 65
Typology Community Boundary Narrative of Home
V
68 82
Residential Typologies Mixed - Use Typologies
91
Chapter Four - Case Studies
93 95 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111 113 115
Domesticity Standard Balloon Frame Early Vernacular California Bungalows - 1920s Vancouver Special - 1960s Walk-Up - One Bedroom Walk-Up - Two Bedrooms Tower - One Bedroom Tower - Two Bedrooms Timeline - One Bedroom Timeline - Two Bedrooms Next Vancouver Special
117
Chapter Five - City Analysis
119 121 123 125 127 129 131 133 135 137
Affordability Income and Shelter Cost Owned and Rented Number of Bedrooms and Density Building Age FSR - Floor Space Ratio Land Use Land Value Total Value per GFA Zoning
139
Chapter Six - False Creek Flats Analysis
141 143 145 147 149 151 153 155 147 159 161
Art and Cultural Spaces Heritage Sites and Character Assets Local Food Resources Walking, Cycling, and Transit Sea Level Rise and Soils Industrial and Mixed Employment Truck and Goods Movement Rail Lines and Facilities Demographics Program Analysis Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
163
Chapter Seven - Studies and Site Intervention
165 167 171 199 211 213 219 221 229 235 241 253
St Paul’s Hospital Concept Plan Site Information Massing Studies Sun Studies Program Master plan Diagrams Master plan Diagrams Floor Plans Sections Renderings Physical Model Photos
259
Bibliography
VII
List of Figures II
Fig. 1 - Borrett, Mathew. Drawings Done in Ink and Pencil. http://www.mathewborrett.com
IV
Fig. 2 - Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York. http://contemporarycity.org/2014/04/koolhaas-rem-2
XIV
Fig. 3 - Dujardin, Filip. Untitled #20. http://www.booooooom.com/2015/12/10/artist-spotlight-filipdujardin
XVI-XVII
Fig. 4 - Vancouver Skyline. http://www.deviantart.com/tag/vancouverskyline?offset=150
1
Fig. 5 - Lazzarini, Luca. Diagrams showing Bucharest urban structure. http://contemporarycity.org/2014/05/bucharest-3
3
Fig. 6 - 1874 Victorian Print, India. http://www.old-print.com/mas_assets/full2/N3281905/ N3281905341.jpg
4
Fig. 7 - Decentralized System. Author
5
Fig. 8 - Hong Kong Skyline. http://twistedsifter.com/2015/03/hong-kong-skyline-at-night
6
Fig. 9 - Centralized System. Author
7
Fig. 10 - Wilson, Owen. Bringing Down the White Fence. http://bringingdownthewhitepicketfence.com/tag/owen-wilson
8
Fig. 11 - Old Map of Paris. 1180. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_maps_of_Paris_from_Trait
9-18
Fig. 12 to 21 - Paris vs. Vancouver. Author
19
Fig. 22 - Dubai Skyline. https://www.dawn.com/news/1224768
20
Fig. 23 - Dubai’s Sheikh Zayed road, 1991. https://fakeplasticsouks.blogspot.com/2014_10_01_archive.html
21-30
Fig. 24 to 33 - Dubai vs. Vancouver. Author
31
Fig. 34 - Interior, Threshold, and Exterior. Author
36
Fig. 35 - Hot Climate Condition. Author
36
Fig. 36 - Cold Climate Condition. Author
35
Fig. 37 - Plaza Reial, Barcelona. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barcelona_Plaza_Real. jpg
35
Fig. 38 - I.M.Pei, Boston City Hall. http://architizer.com/blog/boston-city-hall-drawings
37
Fig. 39 - Calvino, Italo. Invisible Cities. http://www.archdaily.com/781043/italo-calvinos-invisible-citiesillustrated
38
Fig. 40 - Integrated Morphology. Author
IX
39
Fig. 41 - Aerial Photo of Vancouver Burrard Inlet. http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/aerial-view-of-burrard-inlet
41
Fig. 42 - Calvino, Italo. Invisible Cities. http://www.archdaily.com/781043/italo-calvinos-invisible-citiesillustrated
43
Fig. 43 - Aerial Photo of Downtown Vancouver. http://www.mypartytravel.org/canada/vancouver-travel-guide
45
Fig. 44 - False Creek Development, Downtown Vancouver. https://reflectingvancouver.wordpress.com/tag/north-false-creek
47
Fig. 45 - Concord Pacific Development, Vancouver. https://vimeo.com/68779485
47
Fig. 46 - Concord Pacific Development, Vancouver. https://vimeo.com/68779485
49
Fig. 47 - Dubai Marina Skyline. http://www.abercrombiekent.co.uk/uae/dubai
49
Fig. 48 - Aerial View of Dubai Marina. https://www.engelvoelkers.com/en-ae/dubai/michael-hof
51
Fig. 49 - Bing Thom Architects, Trinity Uptown Proposal. Sketch https://www.linkedin.com/company/trinity-river-vision-authority
51
Fig. 50 - Bing Thom Architects, Trinity Uptown Proposal. Plan http://www.trinityrivervision.org/projects/panther-island
53
Fig. 51 - Greater Vancouver, British Columbia : regional major street plan, 1927. http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca
55
Fig. 52 - Calvino, Italo. Invisible Cities. http://www.archdaily.com/781043
57
Fig. 53 - MVRDV. Molot Factory Transformation Proposal. http://www.fastcoexist.com/3029993/this-moscow-factory-was-asymbol-of-soviet-industry-now-its-a-walkable-neighborhood/18
59
Fig. 54 - Kay, Laird. Lego City. http://www.designboom.com/art/laird-kay-lego-city-architecturephotography-02-02-2016
61
Fig. 55 - Caron, Armelle. Ah, Oui. http://www.thejealouscurator.com/blog/2011/02/24
63
Fig. 56 - Layzell, Paul. We Heart. http://designyoutrust.com/2012/07/paul-layzell/paullayzell2
65
Fig. 57 - ELEMENTAL. Quinta Monroy. http://www.archdaily.com/10775/quinta-monroy-elemental
67-79
Fig. 58 to 64 - Vancouver Residential Typologies. Author
81-89
Fig. 65 to 69 - Vancouver Mixed Use Typologies. Author
91
Fig. 70 - Diversity in Typologies. Author
93
Fig. 71 - 1950s USA Housewife with Fridge Magazine Advert. http://fineartamerica.com/featured
95
Fig. 72 - Ten men building a wood frame house, Omaha reservation, Nebraska, 1877. http://www.neh.gov/divisions/public/featured-project
XI
97
Fig. 73 - Floor Plans of an Early Vernacular House Located on 428 E 24TH Ave. http://pauleviston.com/mylistings.html/details-52300318
99
Fig. 74 - Floor Plans of a California Bungalow Located on 5331 Saratoga Dr, Cliff Dr. http://www.remax.ca/bc/tsawwassen-real-estate/na-5331saratoga-drive-na-wp_id140441646-lst/
101
Fig. 75 - Floor Plans of a Vancouver Special Located on 856 E 14th Ave. http://robzwick.com/robzwick.com/mylistings.html/floorplans-24408249
103-110
Fig. 76 to 91 - Floor Plans of Various Apartments in Vancouver. http://www.bccondos.net
111-112
Fig. 92 - Timeline of the One Bedroom Apartments. Author
113-114
Fig. 93 - Timeline of the Two Bedroom Apartments. Author
115
Fig. 94 - Lewitt, Sol. Every Combination of an Incomplete Cube. http://www.grasshopper3d.com/photo/every-combination-of-anincomplete-cube-1-after-sol-lewitt
117
Fig. 95 - Vancouver Map. Author
119-138
Fig. 96 to 115 - Site Analysis. Author
139
Fig. 116 - Vancouver Map. Author
141-156
Fig. 117 to 124 - Site Analysis. Author (Data Derived from City of Vancouver Website)
157-158
Fig. 125 - False Creek Flats Demographics. Author (Data Derived from City of Vancouver Website)
159
Fig. 126 - Program Analysis. Author (Data Derived from City of Vancouver Website)
161
Fig. 127 - False Creek Flats Transit and Vehicular Access. Author (Data Derived from City of Vancouver Website)
162
Fig. 128 - False Creek Flats Pedestrian and Bike Access. Author (Data Derived from City of Vancouver Website)
163
Fig. 129 - Podium Reconfigured Concept. Author
165-169
Fig. 130 to 134 - Site Info. Author
171-210
Fig. 135 to 173 - Massing and Shadow Studies. Author
211-212
Fig. 174 - Program Section. Author
213-252
Fig. 175 to 197 - Final Drawings. Author
253-258
Fig. 198 to 203 - Physical Model Photos. Author
XIII
Dujardin, Filip. Untitled #20.
Preface Echhard Schulze Fielitz, the German Architect once explained densification does not need to have a negative connotation if it generates synergetic advantages in the urban context.1 A conviction that densification is detrimental to the city festers in Vancouver. This is most likely due to the massive amount of one bedroom units within the homogenous towers, the lack of appropriate family units, and the degradation environmentally caused by the steel and concrete systems used. Most Vancouver condos are one bedroom or smaller in size. Space comes at a premium in the city, but most are willing to pay this premium for easy access to amenities. A highly static object is constructed with a predetermined program or function that becomes
the standard podium tower. This thesis seeks to enhance community based interaction by exploring the history of residential typologies in Vancouver and how it evolved to the current paradigm of podium tower. While looking at the history of Vancouver is informative, this thesis will draw a comparison to older cities. The goal is to find a new way of providing relief space in the dense urban fabric. Architecture must be sensitive to its surroundings and not impose a social or ecological burden, and the solution must be contextually driven as well as enhanced to sustain the growth of the city in the future. As Jan Gehl would say, architects should design from eye level and at a speed of 5 kilometers per hour.
1. Echhard Schulze Fielitz
XV
Vancouver Skyline.
“THE CITY IS BEING SHAPED ALMOST ENTIRELY BY PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT IN ITS MOST REDUCTIVE AND PROFITABLE FORM – CONDOS...”
“THERE REALLY ARE VERY FEW OTHER CITY BUILDING
ENTERPRISES
OPERATIONAL
IN
VANCOUVER AT THE MOMENT.”
-JOHN PATKAU
XVII
Lazzarini, Luca. Diagrams showing Bucharest urban structure focusing on blocks, roads and typologies.
Chapter One Overview of Cities Developed During Different Time Period
2
1874 Victorian Print, India.
Settlement, Home Settlements were created by people clustering around a well, and typically the size of these settlements depends on how far one can walk with a pot of water on his/her head. For example, if you look at the map of Germany, you recognize hundreds of these villages that are roughly one mile apart. The reason is that they needed easy access to the fields, but also for thousands of years home was the center of life. it was a center of healthcare, entertainment, production, etc. However, industrialization changed everything to become centralized. Work moved to offices, healthcare moved to hospitals, learning moved to schools, and production moved to assembly plants. Then, the networks were developed. Rail networks that
could connect all these different areas to each other, water and sewer networks, auto networks, and so on. In fact, the goal was to give everyone the chance to have a car, and build roads and parkings so that they can get to their destination by their own vehicle. However, this model was not very functional. There are many cities that are being planned all over the world based on this model that was invented in the 50s and 60s.
4
Hong Kong Skyline.
Urbanization Let’s look at China. Some people say that over the next 15 years 300 million to 400 million people will move to the cities. This means that in order to be able to accommodate all these people, they need to build an equivalent of built infrastructure that United States has in only 15 years. We should all care about this issue whether we live in cities or not. Cities will comprise of 90 percent of the world population, 80 percent of the global CO2, and 75 percent of energy use, yet this is where people want to be. Currently, more than 50 percent of the world population lives in the cities, and this percentage will continue to grow. Another reason why cities are growing very quickly is because it is where most of the wealth is created.
Now, the impact of these centralizations in the cities allowed homes to be the center of life again, so home is becoming the center of production, healthcare, shopping, and all the things we used to think of as happening outside. So, the city is a place for people, and the question is how we can live in cities without all the bad things such as congestion, pollution, disease, etc.
6
Wilson, Owen. Bringing Down the White Fence. Old Map of Paris. 1180.
Paris - Dispersed So, if we look back at Paris that evolved before the invention of cars, we realize that this city was a series of 20 minute walk villages that came together. The 20 districts of Paris are these little neighborhoods that can provide people with everything they need in life within a 5 or 10 minute walk. And when you look at the map of Paris, you realize that everything such as shops, pharmacies, and cafes is distributed evenly across the city. And then you look at cities that evolved after the invention of cars, and they don’t have the same pattern at all. There is very little within 5 or 10 minute walk of most areas of places in North American cities. We need a new model for housing, a new model for our
transportation and mobility, a new model for how we live and work, but at the end of the day, we need to focus on people. Cities are places for people, and there is no reason why we can’t change our cities dramatically to be better and more livable.
8
Pharmacies in Paris.
Pharmacies in Vancouver.
10
Physicians in Paris.
Physicians in Vancouver.
12
Restaurants in Paris.
Restaurants in Vancouver.
14
Shops in Paris.
Shops in Vancouver.
16
Parks and Community Gardens in Paris.
Parks and Community Gardens in Vancouver.
18
Dubai Skyline. Dubai’s Sheikh Zayed road, 1991.
Dubai - Centralized A sense of place is your ability to create places that are memorable and places of quality only depends on how well you can define space with the buildings around it. I have lived in Dubai for 6 years, and I would like to refer to it as the greatest misallocation of resources in the human history. The public realm in Dubai has two roles; one is that it is the dwelling place and the second one is that it is the physical manifestation of common good. So, when you degrade the public realm, you eventually degrade the quality of life in the city. The public realm comes in the form of street since there are no 1000 year old plazas or market places. As architects and planners, our ability to define space and create places that are meaningful
and worth caring about comes from a body of knowledge that is called civic design. But, after World War II, we decided to throw this method and skill in the garbage because we thought we don’t need this anymore, and we can see the result of it everywhere. The public realm has to be able to inform us where we are geographically, where we are culturally, and it also needs to show us a glimpse of where we are going to be, and this will allow us to live in a hopeful present.
20
Pharmacies in Dubai.
Pharmacies in Vancouver.
22
Physicians in Dubai.
Physicians in Vancouver.
24
Restaurants in Dubai.
Restaurants in Vancouver.
26
Shops in Dubai.
Shops in Vancouver.
28
Parks and Community Gardens in Dubai.
Parks and Community Gardens in Vancouver.
30
Interior
Exterior
Interior
Exterior
Inside vs. Outside One of the main goals and ambitions of modernist architects was to create a utopian interior environment, and this was solved by separating the inside of the building from the outside. Hence, this resulted in creating an interior space that is insulated with modern materials, conditioned, and controlled by technological advancement and had “gadgets� that could make life easier.1 However, these technological advancements often made life more difficult, and the interior spaces of the buildings tended to give abnormally secluded feeling to its residents. On one hand, there was an admiration in 20th century to modernize countries and conceal buildings and condition the spaces with technology. However, this is considered as
unsustainable due to the energy cost and inability to produce these needs without fossil fuels. One of the leading standard designers for sustainable design, USGBC, requires all LEED projects to be interior spaces, even if the majority or all of the habitable and programmable space is outside. This highlights one of the inefficiencies of creating standards of sustainability with little geographical and climatic specificity and also disregards the positive potentials of passive systems. The goals pursued are the reduction of thermal gain/ loss through increasing amounts of thermal insulation, electrical equipment regulation of interior environs and the reduction of energy consumption.2
1. Hensel, Michael. Performance-Oriented Design Precursors and Potentials. 2. Perkins + Will. Research Journal. 2009. 32
Some historical context might be of use for our utilitarian environmental consciousness. The mashrabiya in Islamic architecture and jali in Mogul architecture are screened vertical planes allowing ventilation, modulating external light and providing privacy. The badgirs in Persian architecture are wind catchers that function as a natural ventilation cooling system, funneling exterior air inside and pushing hot air out. The porch found in the traditional architecture of the United States’ southeast, provides a continuous shading device protecting from slanting sun and blowing rain.3 These devices can create inbetween spaces that are both inside and outside, providing more heterogeneity to the spatial catalogue of a place.
Adding more to the richness and diversity of interior spaces, the porosity and thickness of walls are variables when manipulated, create a variety of microclimates that work with the dynamic needs of building habitation. Certain climatic conditions work with certain programs; depending on the time of day or season, conditions might shift or other conditions might emerge if needed. In cold climates, daytime activities might occur along the south façade to maximize solar gain and nighttime activities shift inward to an insulated space. In hot climates, the use of innercourtyards provides shading and ventilation during the day and nighttime activities disperse outwards.4
3. Perkins + Will. Research Journal. 2009. 4. Hensel, Michael. Performance-Oriented Design Precursors and Potentials.
The synergy between material arrangements, microclimatic conditions of space and interrelated migratory activities is a dynamic relationship rarely seen in the age of the air-conditioner. Operable windows, arcades and porches have mostly disappeared from contemporary architecture due to the strict division between interior and exterior and this
division is rewarded as being sustainable. As new spaces begin to require regenerative designs, a migration back to older ideas and uses of space could provide not only symbiotic relationships between buildings and the earth, but also more dynamic and interesting spatial conditions.
Hot climate condition: daytime activities in a central, ventilated and shaded spaces.
Cold climate condition: activities along the south.
daytime
34
Plaza Reial, Barcelona. I.M.Pei, Boston City Hall.
Defined vs. Ambiguous In order to create a space that has a certain quality to it and has characters, we need to be able to define that space. If we fail to define a space, no one eventually wants to be in there, and those places are not worth caring about. A good public space is where people want to be there, where people go there because it is enjoyable to be there. It is well defined, and more importantly it has things that go in and out of it. In other words, it is permeable, and it has shops, restaurants, and other things that make it a destination. Permeability is what makes these successful public spaces activated. We don’t have to have an event that brings people to that plaza. People just go there because they like them. One of the worst public spaces is designed by
I.M. Pei and Harry Cobb in Boston. It is so dismal that no one wants to go there. Sometimes you can really tell what the discussion was the night before the submission of the project, when the team of architects and designers are sitting around the table with all the drawings and renderings trying really hard to finish the job on time with all the junk food bags lying on the table... Do you know what the last sentence was? It was “Screw it”. This is the message that these kinds of spaces and projects are carrying with them. They say we don’t care, and we need to change this behavior as soon as possible.
36
“WE SHAPE OUR BUILDINGS; THEREAFTER THEY SHAPE US.
-WINSTON CHURCHILL
Calvino, Italo. Invisible Cities.
We are entering an era that will change everything radically in the world; I would like to call it the post cheap oil era. We need to down scale everything, we need to live closer to where we work, we need to live closer to each other, and we need to grow our food closer to where we live. The 2,000 mile Roman Lettuce is coming to an end soon. One thing that we need to be thankful of is the efforts of the new Urbanists on taking out all the information we threw in the garbage. We need to use this body of knowledge, civic design, to reconstruct our cities to make it more walkable, more livable, and more dispersed rather than centralized. In addition, we need to be able to use these methodologies in order to create
meaningful places. And once again, we need to learn how to compose streets, blocks, public spaces in different sizes and in different forms such as courtyards and civic squares. We are not prepared for the life in mid-21st century as it is going to be all about living locally. Nothing will be able to rescue us from what is coming at us, and the only solution we have is to do everything we do differently.
38
Aerial Photo of Vancouver Burrard Inlet.
Chapter Two Vancouverism and its Impacts on Other Cities’ Developments
40
“... THE CITY HOWEVER DOES NOT TELL ITS PAST, BUT CONTAINTS IT LIKE THE LINES OF A HAND, WRITTEN IN THE CORNER OF ITS STREETS.”
-ITALO CALVINO
Calvino, Italo. Invisible Cities.
Livable City Livability is a term which is thrown around as to the end all be all, of why Vancouver is desirable to make home. Why does the Vancouver Model work? Or does it? Vancouver has been repeatedly named one of the most ‘livable’ cities. But how do we define this term and why is it useful. “The ‘livable city’ is a paradox parading as common sense. Participatory urban planning exercises across the continent aim to inflect ‘livability’ with meanings particular to each place, without considering how the term has been made a topic of consultation.”1 A definition of livability in suburban terms is “as close to nature, healthy, child-friendly, and community oriented”, which is then projected towards an urban model. The “suburban city”, contradictory
terms yes, but often we see this term in relation to successful cities. From Kataoka, “The livable city contradiction would seem to have been resolved with the conception of “urban cities”. But just as the rural romance has been haunted by what it hoped to have left behind (i.e., the complexities of the urban) the urban romance is haunted by the simplicity of the rural.”2 Thus Vancouverism is given principles in a retrospective article entitled “Living First’ in Downtown Vancouver.”
1. Kataoka, Serena. Vancouverism: Actualizing the Livable City Paradox. 2. Hutton, Thomas A. Vancouver Cities.
42
Aerial Photo, Downtown Vancouver.
Vancouverism There is no city like Vancouver with such density and proximity to nature. This city offers a glimpse to a potential new form of urbanism for mid-21st century life style. The youngest of the largest North American’s cities, Vancouver’s population almost doubled up from 1.2 million in 1981 to 2.2 million in 2006. It is predicted that its population will surpass 3 million by 2020. Hence, the effect of this growth is the density of 42,000 people in Sq. mile in downtown which is second dense city in North America after Manhattan’s 65,000 people in Sq. mile.1 Reminiscent of Jane Jacobs, the principles include resisting the freeway, extending the fabric patterns and character of the existing city, insisting on a rich housing mix. Although
where it diverges from Jacobs’ model of de-centering the green linkages and parks, the green spaces become central to the Vancouver Model.2 Vancouverism as defined by Beasley, is interested in the marketing of the dense city lifestyle as more desirable, for example promoting a shorter commute. “Industrially produced condos are likened to Le Corbusier’s “machines for living”, and it would have made sense to take up his prescription for a “state of mind” for living in them.”3 Beasley instead enforces a live work play state of mind, which is ambiguous enough for the mixing cultures of Vancouver to reach some sort of balance. Here Kataoka reminds us of the market persistence of its conveyors to the pursuit of influence and power.
1. Soules, Matthew. Seven (7) Points for EcoMetropolitanism. 2 & 3. Kataoka, Serena. Vancouverism: Actualizing the Livable City Paradox.
44
False Creek Development, Downtown Vancouver.
Downtown The term Vancouverism emerged in 1990s because of the five basic principles that architects and planners tried to achieve in downtown: 1) High density housing. 2) Provision of laws. 3) Large amount of green space. 4) Ample civic amenities. 5) Generous spacing between buildings. The essential idea for Vancouverism is to create a livable and sensitive urban fabric. 1 The formal characteristics of downtown Vancouver consist of the dominant podium towers, the proliferation of different sized green spaces, and the accentuation of view corridors. So, the podium tower typology is characterized by placing one to four residential point towers on a podium base, and this base usually includes townhouses,
commercial spaces, and amenity programs such as gym, pool, lounge, etc. This typology ensures the generous space between the towers, mitigate crowding, and allow light and view to different spaces. Zoning guidelines consider this idea, and allow 6,000 Sq. feet for shorter towers and 4,500 Sq. feet for taller towers. In addition, in macro scale, the planning department of City of Vancouver defined 27 ‘view cones’ to be significant vistas.2 These view cones tend to keep the visual connection of the city with the surrounding wilderness. In addition, Stanley Park, third largest city owned park in North America, sits in adjacency to Downtown, and consists of diverse wildlife.
1. Soules, Matthew. Seven (7) Points for EcoMetropolitanism. 2. Boddy, Trevor. Vancouverism in Vancouver.
46
Concord Pacific Concord Pacific Place is considered the birth place for Vancouverism. It is the largest master planned community in North America which covers about 148 acres, and it accommodates 8,000 residential units, commercial space, and 42 acres of green spaces. Started in the early 1990s, this development is almost finishing with the construction, and it is considered innovative because of the way it attracted a lot of people to high density living in downtown.1 In addition, it is a highly collaborative process where governing public planning agency worked with different private developers to create a sustainable community instead of separating buildings or blocks. Hence, this requires private developers to finance essential elements such
as community centers, day cares, schools, etc. Thus, the planning agency ensures the developer’s profitability while maintaining the common good. The amenities are made available at the same time as residential units. For example, the community center at Concord Place was among the first buildings that got constructed.2 The building blocks in this development consist of slender towers sitting on a podium that consists of row housing, commercial, and amenity programs that ensure the pedestrian-oriented street scape. The size and the distance between these towers not only allow sunlight to reach the sidewalk but it also maximizes the view from residential units and city scape.
1. Soules, Matthew. The “Livable” Suburbanized City. 2. Sorenson, Jean. “Cost of Social Programming [City of Vancouver Increases Development Cost Levy].” 48
Dubai Marina The Vancouver typology has been recreated in cities such as Dubai, Abu Dhabi, various cities in China, and transformed waterfronts in places like Fort Worth.1 In addition, it has been an inspiration for denser cities such as Toronto and San Francisco. Hence, Vancouver has become an archetype such a Paris and Manhattan that other cities look to as precedent.1 Cities reference Vancouverism in many different ways. Some might adapt its criteria according to their geographic and cultural characteristics, and others might replicate it. Dubai Marina is one of the largest waterfront community developments that replicate this form. Designed by HOK, and developed by Emaar, this project intends to house over 100,000
people. It is highly influenced by Concord Pacific in Vancouver as a model to look at. Moreover, Dubai Marina imports the podium tower typology, open-space ratio, and public waterfront promenade from Vancouverism. Trevor Boddy explained that Dubai Marina is “almost a perfect clone of downtown Vancouver - right down to the handrails on the seawall, the skinny towers on townhouse bases, all around a 100 percent artificial, full scale version of False Creek filled with seawater from the Persian Gulf.”2 The only significant change to localize this typology is evident in the materiality and ornament: towers have Arabesque hats, and cladded with stone.
1. Soules, Matthew. The “Livable” Suburbanized City. 2. Boddy, Trevor. Vancouverism in Vancouver.
50
Trinity Uptown After the master plan for Fort Worth was unveiled by the famous Vancouver Architect, Bing Thom, an article came out titled “Fort Worth, Vancouver of the South?” But opposite to what they achieved in Dubai Marina or City Place in Toronto, this master plan is a more nuanced deployment of Vancouverism to the site’s particularities. The podium tower typology co-exists with other building types incorporated in a design that has a lot of public amenities.1 The document for this planning by Bing Thom states that the first objective in this project is to “reconnect urban Fort Worth to the Trinity River.” Hence, this is achieved by using Vancouver as its model. This kind of densification with having a public waterfront is one of the base propositions
of Vancouverism. This kind of urbanism can be described as a Third Way urbanism which is beyond the old schism of urban and suburban.2 If the success in the suburbia was embedded in achieving the comfortable good life by the consistency and predictability of homogenous neighborhoods, Vancouverism offered the same character in a different scale and in a different location. The suburb’s character of having streets lined up with single family houses and having leisure filled possibilities of back yard and the visually demonstrative front lawn has shape lifted to create Vancouverism. Hence, the scale, form, and expression of Vancouverism are consistent and orderly.
1. Bing Thom Architects. The Trinity Uptown Plan Proposal 2. Soules, Matthew. The “Livable” Suburbanized City.
52
“VANCOUVERISM’S MIXED USE DOESN’T EXTEND BEYOND HAVING A GOOD LATTE, ORGANIC PRODUCE, DESIGNER SHOPS, AND HAIR SALONS CLOSE TO ONE’S CONDO. THE INCLUSION OF WORK SPACE IS TOKEN AT BEST.”
-MATTHEW SOULES
Greater Vancouver, British Columbia : regional major street plan, 1927.
Criticism Vancouver’s emphatic quest for healthy compromise fails to recognize and celebrate the antagonism in the urban life. Antagonism happens when different people with different agenda, culture, and tradition can actualize their specificity through different habitats within the registered space in the city. Thus, it is necessary to embrace antagonism for radical and substantive diversity.1 A common criticism to Vancouver model is that it is boring and that it is too homogenous. In other words, Vancouverism tries to create “good life” by diminishing any chance of confrontation of competing interests. The result is a very quiet and inactive city that is contradicting its density. Hence, the limited activities and comfort
space of a narrow social stratum is contradictory to the idea of city as a place where different people with different interests come together.2 Vancouver sees that model as too messy and unpredictable. Counterpoint to Vancouverism, Manhattanism is considered to be a paradigm for the exploitation of Congestion.2 Moreover, it realizes that a city that’s determined by peace, quiet, and safety can be limiting in terms of experience, and Manhattanism did facilitate the full expression of radical differences systematically. He explains further that each city block has its own identity and texture which prevents the city from having a homogenous texture. In other words, It is opposite of livability, and it’s about competing ideologies.
1. Soules, Matthew. The “Livable” Suburbanized City. 2. Koolhaas, Rem. Delirious New York.
54
“...ONE COULD ARGUE THAT A TRUE LIVABILITY WOULD ACCOMMODATE CONFLICT.”
-MATTHEW SOULES
Calvino, Italo. Invisible Cities.
The grid in Manhattanism is such a system that prevents ideological compromise but it allows for inhabiting space peacefully. “It is an eclectic and lively mash-up of large spaces, small spaces, lowrises, high-rises, new buildings, old buildings, large office floor plates, small live-work studios, take-out joints, high cuisine, spare interiors, exotic interiors, and everything in between” Says Matthew Soules.1 The experience in cities such as Manhattan is shaped by surprise. Hence, what is offered by this kind of urbanism is an adventure in shocking gestures and sublime beauties. In contrast, Vancouverism seeks for commonality by shaping controlled spaces and activities. In other words, Vancouverism
does not trust its inhabitants. The flaw of having a livable city is rooted in the fact that it prefaces a narrow range of variables in order to create a more ambitious understanding of humanity.2 The way in which livability limits the political and social life in the city predicts its paradox. Hence, homogenization of world culture in such places causes a safe banal city that avoids authentic substances. The question is what form of urbanism can save us from the current paradox of livable city? In my opinion, the most important task today is to design new urban devices that will allow all citizens to co-exist both physically and ideologically together and separate.
1. Soules, Matthew. The “Livable” Suburbanized City. 2. Boddy, Trevor. Vancouverism in Vancouver.
56
MVRDV. Molot Factory Transformation Proposal.
Chapter Three Overview on Residential and Mixed-Use Typologies in Vancouver
58
“CITIES USED TO BE THE RESULT OF COLLECTIVE WILL AND A DESIRE TO SHAPE – TO CONTROL – OUR ENVIRONMENTS. THEY WERE EXPRESSIONS OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THEM. NOW THEY’RE ABOUT BRANDING AND IMAGE... THEY’RE NO LONGER BUILT TO LAST.” -LAIRD KAY
Kay, Laird. Lego City.
Typology The term ‘typology’ derives from Greek word ‘typos’ meaning to model, matrix, or mold. It refers to classification of the existing formal construction of buildings and urban forms in terms of social function and spatial efficiency. In other words, typology is a social and spatial process in which the different types of buildings can be described as the convergence of social and spatial practices. Moreover, typology is always undergoing modifications not only in the production but also in influencing spatial adaptations of the newly built forms.1 You might wonder why typology is important in this topic. Housing makes up about 80 percent of our built form. Thus, it shapes how our cities look like. But, typology defines more than the appearance
of the city. It also defines the lines between public and private realms, the relationship between neighbors, and between the members of the same household. It can define whether one can adapt his home to his needs. Moreover, it tells us where city ends and where home begins. Typology is a way to depict needs, taste, and priorities of a generation. Looking at Vancouver housing typologies can open a window to the social and political outlooks and preoccupations in the past.2 Typologies evolved to suit the fashion of the time and impose social ideals onto people. These changes were influenced not only by technological advances such as the invention of automobile in the 1920s but also by the needs of the developers.
1. Rogan, Damian. Typology and Densification. 2. Law, David. Boundaries, Privacy, and Community.
60
Caron, Armelle. Ah, Oui.
Community It is difficult to define typologies in reference to housing because one needs to conceptualize certain conditions that rooted in a lot of different social relations from family members to neighbors. So, typology can be considered a spatial configuration which allows for social relations to happen within it.1 The attempt to create a successful community through the design of shared spaces is extremely challenging because each one of the residents have a different idea and understanding of what community means. Somehow the term ‘community’ has been overused in national planning documents many times which lead to misconception about the true meaning of community especially in reference to housing.
Communities are formed when a group of people share an interest together. So, community should not be associated with housing because neighbors don’t necessarily share a common interest other than living in the same neighborhood, and they may not be happy necessarily. The other misconception about communities is that many people think it refers to the relationships neighbors have, but in fact, many residents ignore their neighbors and live without knowing anyone in their neighborhood.2 The question is can typology help in designing a better community and if yes what are the components and features in a certain type that can create a better housing neighborhood and community?
1. Law, David. Boundaries, Privacy, and Community. 2. Rogan, Damian. Typology and Densification.
62
Layzell, Paul. We Heart.
Boundary Boundaries are what generates public and private realm in an urban society. So, in order to find out about the private and community spaces offered by the existing typologies in Vancouver, we need to study the boundary conditions found in each model. The goal in studying the boundaries is to find a pattern of transitions that can create an ideal balance between privacy and community.1 It is interesting to see how housing typologies can generate community through the use of boundaries that happen to be between private and public realm. The high density residential developments in Vancouver is made based on the idea that higher density can facilitate public transportation, provide better
access to jobs and variety of amenities, and thus improves the urban living quality.2 There are many factors affecting the housing typology such as high densities and mixed communities. A full understanding of typologies will help to better inform future developments of Vancouver in terms of public and private spaces, housing density, quality, and adaptability of spaces. Will these typologies we are using now work if Vancouver were to become a less affluent place? To produce a sustainable housing stock, it is important to build at densities that can support a range of various building types that meets the present and predicted future needs and can provide the qualities people want.
1. Law, David. Boundaries, Privacy, and Community. 2. Rogan, Damian. Typology and Densification.
64
ELEMENTAL. Quinta Monroy.
Narrative of Home Home is a collection of someone’s experiences of family, community and life. It can be associated with plaza, family farm, church, and other factors which all somewhat form a center for experiences.1 The practice of making a home can be described as anchoring the decadence of time into the stability of a place. Hence, it often takes a lot of time to understand the stories of the home, and one can conclude that the process of making a home involves a set of geographical conditions which are not easy to replicate. Within a residential block, there are lots of identical units with unique characters, and this richness can’t be recognized from outside of a structure. The relationship between the physical space, the personal space, the
plan of the home, the typology, and the ideology of the architect is juxtaposed with the idea of adaptability and the ability to transform these units to make stories within and of space. Emerging of new typologies is required to offer housing with more individual and personalized characters in order to address particular needs of residences. However, the overall goal is to offer an affordable, spacious and pleasant lifestyle to everyone.2
1. Zoghaib, Dima. The Personal Space. 2. Zarges, Jessica.Quality, Identity, and Character.
66
Residential Typologies Level 1 - Detached - Low Density
Purpose
To provide for ground-oriented housing with nonstrata accessory uses. Secondary Suites and Coach Houses may not be stratified as per the Condominium Act.
Form
Detached single family dwellings secondary suites or coach houses.
Maximum Density
0.5 FSR.
Bonus
Not applicable.
with
City of Vancouver
68
Level 2 - Attached - Low Density
Purpose
To provide a range of ground-oriented housing in areas located between detached residential and more intensive residential or mixed-use areas.
Form
Duplexes with secondary suites, triplexes, and row homes.
Maximum Density
0.5 FSR.
Bonus
Not applicable.
City of Vancouver
70
Level 3 - Mixed Housing - Low Density
Purpose
To provide ground-oriented housing in a variety of forms.
Form
Townhouses, rowhouses, triplexes, four-plexes.
Maximum Density
0.75 FSR.
Bonus
Not applicable.
City of Vancouver
72
Level 4A - Ground Oriented - Medium Density
Purpose
To provide a range of housing types and sizes close to transit and services including smaller, more affordable housing.
Form
Townhouses, rowhouses, stacked townhouses, garden apartments, four-plexes.
Maximum Density
1.0 FSR.
Bonus
Not applicable.
City of Vancouver
74
Level 4B - Ground Oriented - Medium Density
Purpose
To provide a range of housing types and sizes close to transit and services including smaller, more affordable housing types. Similar in scale and character to Residential Level 4A but allowing for moderately higher-density development options.
Form
Townhouses, rowhouses, stacked townhouses, garden apartments, four-plexes.
Maximum Density
1.25 FSR.
Bonus
Not applicable.
City of Vancouver
76
Level 5 - Mid Rise Apartment - Medium Density
Purpose
To provide quality multi-family housing with a mix of unit sizes, and a focus on creating attractive and active streets.
Form
Mid-rise, primarily wood-frame, apartment buildings.
Maximum Density
1.6 FSR.
Bonus
A maximum increase of 1.0 FSR may be considered when public benefits are provided.
City of Vancouver
78
Level 6 - High Rise Apartment - High Density
Purpose
To provide well-designed high density development in the Lonsdale Regional City Centre.
Form
Mid-rise and high-rise buildings.
Maximum Density
2.3 FSR.
Bonus
A maximum increase of 1.0 FSR may be considered when public benefits are provided.
City of Vancouver
80
Mixed-Use Typologies Level 1 - Medium Density
Purpose
To allow for small-scale neighborhood centers and gathering places with activities including shops, restaurants, cafĂŠs and services located to complement the surrounding community. A mix of residential and commercial is encouraged and may include live/work.
Form
Small-scale buildings compatible with adjacent residential areas.
Maximum Density
1.0 FSR.
Bonus
Not applicable.
City of Vancouver
82
Level 2 - Medium Density
Purpose
To allow mid-rise multi-family and commercial uses and activities contributing to a pedestrianscale village-feel. Sites can be fully commercial, mixed-use, or live/work and must emphasize street fronting activity including shops, cafĂŠs or services.
Form
A mix of building forms and sizes.
Maximum Density
2.0 FSR.
Bonus
A maximum increase of 0.5 FSR may be considered when public benefits are provided.
City of Vancouver
84
Level 3 - Medium Density
Purpose
To allow for a mix of higher-density multi-family and commercial uses to strengthen the City’s major arterial roads and corridors, including a mix of retail and office space on lower floors and residential apartments on upper floors.
Form
A mix of building forms and sizes. Heights are limited as indicated in the Land Use map.
Maximum Density
2.3 FSR.
Bonus
A maximum increase of 0.5 FSR may be considered when public benefits are provided.
City of Vancouver
86
Level 4A - High Density
Purpose
To allow for a mix of higher-density multifamily and commercial uses in Lower Lonsdale. Buildings in this designation typically include a mix of retail and/or office space on lower floors and residential apartments on upper floors.
Form
Mid-rise or high-rise buildings. Heights are limited as indicated in the Land Use map.
Maximum Density
2.6 FSR.
Bonus
A maximum increase of 1.0 FSR may be considered when public benefits are provided.
City of Vancouver
88
Level 4B - High Density
Purpose
To allow for a mix of higher-density multifamily and commercial uses to strengthen the core of the city and generate employment opportunities. Buildings in this designation typically include a mix of retail and/or office space on lower floors and residential apartments on upper floors.
Form
High-rise buildings greater than six storeys. Heights are limited as indicated in the Land Use map.
Maximum Density
3.0 FSR.
Bonus
A maximum increase of 1.0 FSR may be considered when public benefits are provided.
City of Vancouver
90
Diversity in Typologies.
Chapter Four Case Studies on Existing Residential Typologies in Vancouver
92
1950s USA Housewife with Fridge Magazine Advert.
Domesticity When we think of Vancouver, we are reminded of the detached single family homes with their west coast style situated in a very special landscape. In 1951, these homes were published to have the Canadian identity in Massey Report on the arts and sciences in Canada. In addition, they were promoted to be ideal for a modern family life in various magazines such as Western Homes. The kitchens and the planning of the rooms in these suburban homes express the talent of the advertising world and the imagination of the buyers.1 However, this was not the only domestic landscape that was developing at the time; the highrise apartments were growing which we could probably only link them to the modern domesticity.
The word “domestic” refers to the residential buildings in its very common usage. Hence, it is somewhat associated with the word “home”. So, the domestic and domesticity is really connected with the public realm and the private realm and the gender asymmetries associated with that division. One could argue that while domestic landscape is about private lives and individuality, it also affects how people live together and can reinforce certain social patterns within the landscape which makes domesticity very ideological and political.2
1. Massey, Vincent. Report of the Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences 2. McKay, Sherry. “Urban Housekeeping” and Keeping the Modern House. 94
Ten men building a wood frame house, Omaha reservation, Nebraska, 1877.
Standard Balloon Frame Framing in construction is usually fitting together pieces to give a structure support and shape. Balloon framing is a method of wood construction which is also known as Chicago Construction in the 19th Century. This method was used to build houses in areas rich in softwood forests such as Canada and Scandinavia. It uses long continuous framing members that run from sill plate to top plate and the floor structures would be nailed into them. So, the height of window sills, headers, and the next floor height would be marked on these members, and this method was popular when long lumber was plentiful and eventually got replaced by platform framing construction. In this method, each floor is framed as separate unit.1 It is not certain who introduced
balloon framing in the United States. However, the first building using balloon framing was possibly a warehouse constructed in 1832 in Chicago, Illinois, by George Washington Snow. Architectural critic Sigfried Giedion cited Chicago architect J. M. Van Osdel’s 1880s attribution, as well as A. T. Andreas’ 1885 History of Chicago, to credit Snow as ‘inventor of the balloon frame method’. In 1833, Augustine Taylor (1796–1891) constructed St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Chicago using the balloon framing method.2
1. Ching, Francis D. K. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture. 2. Gideon, Sigfried. “The Balloon Frame and Industrialization” in Roots of Contemporary American Architecture. 96
Top Floor 410 Sq Ft.
Upper Floor 650 Sq Ft.
Roofs, gabled or hipped were made up of cedar shingles. Front porches were sometimes covered in standing seam metal such as tin. Siding was usually drop-siding with a
Main Floor 580 Sq Ft.
Lower Floor 700 Sq Ft.
pronounced channel or concave cove shape at the top of the board. Some rustic houses were shingled or board and batten, a popular Carpenter Gothic siding in the States.
Floor Plans of an Early Vernacular House Constructed in 1910 Located on 428 E 24TH Ave.
Early Vernacular Three major influences for Vancouver’s pioneer houses were first, the cottage plans as published in pattern books by American A.J. Downing in the 1850’s with styles such as Carpenter Gothic with its board and batten exteriors and steeply peaked cottages which appeared in Barkerville and rural B.C. Secondly, much of the houses in Strathcona and Mount Pleasant were influenced by the standard plan of the English row house of the 19th century, with the only bathroom placed upstairs above the kitchen on the entry side, and the living and dining room on the other side. Thirdly, at the turn of the century, “kit” houses – either local pre-fab houses such as the B.C. Mills houses or mail-order kit houses from Eatons and other manufacturers – reflected the
most popular plans seen in the pattern books extensively used by builders. Early cottages were one storey gabled houses – often one room deep – with shallow front porches such as the Clark House (relocated to West 10th Avenue). In the late 1880’s, two storey houses with a full length gable roof running perpendicular to the street appeared with a bay window on the first and sometimes on the second floor above. In upscale versions a recessed balcony was seen over the front entry with a third floor open gable recessed slightly. Other upscale versions introduced a hipped roof as a harbinger of the Edwardian Box house of the early 1900’s. Some of the lane houses had a strong affinity with the massing of early New England houses.1
1. Excerpts from Vancouver Heritage Foundation Website.
98
The most common material was wood, reflecting the local sources, typically shingles on the main body of the house with lap siding covering the lower portion. Stucco with divider boards was used as an accent in front gables. Toward the end of the 1920’s some Craftsman Bungalows had no shingles, opting for entirely lap siding in a wider (more modern) profile, and stucco in gables often had no divider boards. The Craftsman Bungalow was more modest in the application of stone and brick, with the exception of the California Bungalow where brick continued to be applied in a “rustic” manner, roughly set and “linker” bricks. The predominant material was cedar shingles, both for cladding and decorative components
Main Floor 670 Sq Ft.
Upper Floor 1170 Sq Ft.
Floor Plans of a California Bungalow Constructed in 1966 Located on 5331 Saratoga Dr, Cliff Dr.
California Bungalows - 1920s The Craftsman style is derived from the Arts and Crafts movement of the early 20th Century. It was a style that builders could take on with or without the services of an architect, and generally used locally sourced materials. Customized components and even pre-fabricated sections were readily available using catalogues such as Sears, Montgomery Wards and Aladdin. It promoted simplicity with clean lines and evoked strength and quality in how the exterior components were placed. With its popularity spanning a 20-year period, several variations of Craftsman houses developed, three of which are particular to Vancouver. These are traditional Craftsman, Vancouver Craftsman and Craftsman Bungalow. Each
was influenced by builders’ budgets and changes in taste over time and the adaptations in design to suit both large and small lots in neighborhoods across the city. Like the Vancouver Craftsman, the later variation of the Craftsman Bungalow and California Bungalow tended to be set on smaller urban lots. While they were also front gabled, they were asymmetrical in most respects. They were commonly scaled down to one and a half floors, and more modest examples were only one floor (plus basement). The offset entry meant that stairs were also set to one side, and covered porches were either full width (esp. on California Bungalow) or in later variations were half width or less.1
1. Excerpts from Vancouver Heritage Foundation Website.
100
The most common expression for the Special is an all stucco house with the lower façade picked out in brick (or sometimes stone) veneer. Some houses are wood paneled with a change in configuration on the façade and the stucco is painted to match the wood stain. Bisecting these two materials is an iron or aluminum balcony railing – often repeated in the fencing in front. Vestigial coach lamps are often found to the inside upper corner of the living room window on the upper floor. Guardian statues (especially lions rampant) often prevail, mounted at the front gate or stairs.
Main Floor 1,360 Sq Ft.
Lower Floor 1,175 Sq Ft.
Floor Plans of a Vancouver Special Constructed in 1979 Located on 856 E 14th Ave.
Vancouver Special - 1960s The ubiquitous Vancouver Special is a fixture in our city’s landscape, predominantly an east side phenomenon. With their flat fronts, boxy shapes, and low pitched roofs, these homes are regionally unique as they were designed to optimize the use of a 33 ft. wide city lot under the RS-1 District Zoning Schedule in the 1960s and 1970s. The Specials first appeared circa 1965 and multiplied to over 10,000 (est.) examples by 1985. The original stock-plan design probably drafted in collaboration with local builders and often adjusted to adapt to various lot sizes or client needs, maximized the floor space the City’s zoning would allow at the time and was sold in vast numbers. In the late 1970s, a house plan for a
Special could be bought at a stock plan office for about $65. In those days, all the information required for a building permit (including elevations) could fit onto one sheet. Given the regularity this design was submitted at City Hall, permits were issued in no time. In the 1960s and 70s it was not unusual for a Special to be built in just a few weeks. The City of Vancouver made changes to the single-family zoning regulations in the 1980s with the intent to stop additional Vancouver Specials from being built. However, other Lower Mainland cities have not substantially changed their housing codes over the past 25 years with respect to this kind of housing design.1
1. Excerpts from Vancouver Heritage Foundation Website.
102
Walk-Up - One Bedroom 1972 - 1848 W 3rd Ave, Royale Number of Floors 3 Number of Apartments 41 Unit Square Footage 625 Sq Ft.
1981 - 1550 Barclay St, The Barclay Number of Floors 4 Number of Apartments 67 Unit Square Footage 610 Sq Ft.
1978 - 1063 W 7th Ave, Mariner Terrace Number of Floors 3 Number of Apartments 24 Unit Square Footage 430 Sq Ft.
2003 - 2065 W 12th Ave, Sydney Number of Floors 4 Number of Apartments 52 Unit Square Footage 780 Sq Ft.
104
Walk-Up - Two Bedrooms 1972 - 1848 W 3rd Ave, Royale Number of Floors 3 Number of Apartments 41 Unit Square Footage 850 Sq Ft.
1986 - 102 2287 W 3rd Ave Number of Floors 4 Number of Apartments 10 Unit Square Footage 890 Sq Ft.
1982 - 1005 W 7th Ave Number of Floors 4 Number of Apartments 16 Unit Square Footage 785 Sq Ft.
2003 - 2630 Arbutus St, Arbutus Outlook Number of Floors 4 Number of Apartments 23 Unit Square Footage 910 Sq Ft.
106
Tower - One Bedroom 1960 - 1835 Morton Ave, Ocean Towers Number of Floors 19 Number of Apartments 68 Unit Square Footage 750 Sq Ft.
1989 - 550 W 12th Ave, Hollyburn Court
Number of Floors 12 Number of Apartments 88 Unit Square Footage 515 Sq Ft.
1977 - 1006 2445 W 3rd Ave, The Carriage House Number of Floors 11 Number of Apartments 64 Unit Square Footage 1130 Sq Ft.
1992 - 1075 Barclay St, Barclay Terrace
Number of Floors 7 Number of Apartments 36 Unit Square Footage 450 Sq Ft.
108
Tower - Two Bedrooms 1960 - 1835 Morton Ave, Ocean Towers Number of Floors 19 Number of Apartments 68 Unit Square Footage 1500 Sq Ft.
1989 - 1311 Beach Ave, Tudor Manor Number of Floors 23 Number of Apartments 66 Unit Square Footage 1330 Sq Ft.
1983 - 4353 Halifax St, Brent Gardens Number of Floors 25 Number of Apartments 334 Unit Square Footage 850 Sq Ft.
1998 - 1003 Pacific St, Seastar Number of Floors 21 Number of Apartments 105 Unit Square Footage 960 Sq Ft.
110
Timeline - One Bedroom
1960
1972
1977
1978
1981
1989
1992
2003 112
Timeline - Two Bedrooms
1960
1972
1982
1983
1986
1989
1998
2003 114
Lewitt, Sol. Every Combination of an Incomplete Cube.
Next Vancouver Special The scale has become one of the most important issues in the contemporary architecture, and it seems though, in today’s dialogue about density, when more than half of world population live in the cities, scale and form of living is more than ever a subject of concern.
maintain a livable neighborhood while respecting the existing fabric. Two will be in the level of the intervention itself where it is going to make up the dwelling of choice.
This not only plays and integral role on considerations for your experience, but it also brings out questions regarding aesthetic, vital, and ethical. Through the readings and researches undertaken so far, it is evident that the scale needs to be investigated in two levels: one in the level of city where careful interventions will be necessary to bring adequate density in order to
116
Chapter Five Vancouver City Analysis Based on the Municipality Information
118
5x 10x 20x 40x
Affordability Index - Median Dwelling Value / Median Full Time Individual Income. Number of Households with Income Lower than Shelter Costs.
0 Households
50 Households
5 Households
100 Households
20 Households
300 Households
120
Less than 30% 30% to 100% 100% and More
Portion of Household Income for Shelter. Hoseholds with Income Lower than Shelter Costs.
0% of Households
20% of Households
5% of Households
30% of Households
10% of Households
40% of Households
122
0% subsidized 1% subsidized 10% subsidized 50% subsidized 80% subsidized
Portion of Rentals that are Subsidized. Portion of Owned Dwellings.
0% owned 33% owned 50% owned 66% owned 100% owned
124
0-1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3+ Bedrooms
Number of Bedrooms. Unit Density.
0 units/acre
10 units/acre
1 units/acre
30 units/acre
2 units/acre
50 units/acre
5 units/acre
100 units/acre
126
1930
1990
1950
2000
1970
2010
1980
Building Age.
128
0.2
5
0.5
7.5
0.7
10
1
15
2.5
FSR (Estimated).
130
Institutional
Residential - Single Detached & Duplex
Agriculture
Residential - Townhouse
Industrial
Residential - Low-rise Apartment
Recreation, Open Space
Residential - High-rise Apartment
Cemetry
Residential - Institutional & Non-Market Housing
Undeveloped, Unclassified
Commercial
Recent Redeveloped
Mixed Residential Commercial - Low-rise Apartment Mixed Residential Commercial - High-rise Apartment
Land Use.
132
$2,000 / m2
$5,000 / m2
$3,000 / m2
$7,000 / m2
$4,000 / m
$10,000 / m2
2
Relative Land Value.
134
$500 / m2
$10,000 / m2
$1,000 / m2
$20,000 / m2
$2,000 / m
$30,000 / m2
2
$5,000 / m2
Total Value per GFA.
136
First Shaughnessy
Commercial
One Family Dwelling
Historic Area
Two Family Dwelling
Industrial
Multi Family Dwelling
Light Industrial
Comprehensive Development
Limited Agricultural
Zoning.
138