Urban Design Rebellion! Panellists Defend Creative Office Building From A Chair Gone Rogue

720 Beatty Street & 701 Expo Boulevard (DP-2021-00168)
Update May 9, 2021 – The application has now been uploaded to Vancouver’s Shape Your City website at the above link.

Perhaps the most difficult thing about covering these Urban Design Panel meetings is providing an accurate summary of what occurred while maintaining these volunteers’ privacy. Hannah and I respect their sacrifice of time, and it’s horrifying past members have received death threats for supporting 105 Keefer, and hate mail because of one our previous posts. That said, it would be a disservice to pretend that anyone, aside from the landscape architects, took issue with this office building.

City council approved its general size and shape last year (pg 6 & 7), and most who reviewed it then believed it evolved in all the right ways. The Entertainment Pavilion’s rose-gold tinged metal, and highlighting the bridge over the widened breezeway were considered the perfect pairing for these angled, iridescent panels which now act as weather protection. They were pleased to see their advice was incorporated, however, the recommendations reflect a dimmer tone, as they were put forward by a self-described outlier.

The chair, and vice-chair’s absence saw them take over, and only their colleague shared their belief this area was still too tight. Eventually, the applicants were able to explain this connection, like the others that will be created, will be far wider than the parking lot people currently use to access BC Place. That defence went ignored with a recommendation to review means to further increase the width of breezeway and the public realm in relation to the buildings.

Fears public art, something outside their mandate, could cover this aggregate surface led them to seek their collaborator’s advice. The resulting recommendation called for design development to maximize the open space and provide flexible use of plaza spaces. This referenced the “Timber Gardens” which reminded them of clearcutting near their hometown, and a third person agreed this was insulting to include here. The majority strongly disagreed, describing this space, that one couldn’t wait to explore, as sensitive, complementary, and exemplary.

Conversely, the two most opposed asked why the city would allow the visitor’s parking entrance on Beatty Street, when it could be moved to Expo Bouldevard which felt abandoned anyways. The design team hopes to change that perception with sunlight from punched holes in the concourse above, as well as adding more artificial lighting. That should make things more friendly for those driving to work, and cyclists will likely appreciate the city’s plan to add bike lanes to this route.

For this reason, the building’s façade treatment has been brought down to this level, but it incorporates metal screens, rather than windows. The Creative Energy Plant that lays behind them heats much of Downtown, and will be upgraded as part of this process to become far more sustainable. Nonetheless, it was hoped more public art could be added down here, and at first some thought that facility’s bight yellow pipes served that role on the levels above.

Their decades-long function means they cannot be moved, and the applicant is consulting an engineer to ensure they’re better safeguarded going forward. This isn’t just for show, as a new “learning centre” will allow passersby to learn more about district energy. At the roof their vents will remain hidden behind meditative spaces, and a running loop, yet the interim-chair felt this lacked sophistication. Their concern was it would effect nearby hotel suites, and specifically the homes at Roger’s Arena.

The recommendation for design development to the rooftop forms to better relate to the curvilinear nature of the architecture, and the rooftop landscape elements met immediate pushback. Two panelists objected, noting this didn’t protect the public interest. This appeared to irritate the chair, who struck it from this motion of support that was approved 5-2, with both landscape architects against. Fortunately, unlike this New York st-architect team, you don’t have to stay awake until midnight to express your comments here before May 28th, 2021. Alternatively you can call into the Development Permit Board meeting that will decide its fate on June 28th, 2021.

You can view the differences between the rezoning stage and this development application here, and see more detailed photos of the concept shown at this meeting here.

Applicant Team Information:

Developer Partnership – Westbank Corp & Creative Energy
Architects – BIG | Bjarke Ingels Group
Local Architects – HCMA Architecture + Design
Landscape Architects – PUBLICWORK