CITY OF VANCOUVER

OTHER REPORT

 

Report Date:

February 28, 2005

 

Author:

Cheryl Cooper, VHC c/o Diane Clairmont

 

Phone No.:

604.871.6371

 

RTS No.:

4958

 

CC File No.:

3105-1

 

Meeting Date:

March 31, 2005

TO:

Standing Committee on Planning and Environment

FROM:

Vancouver Heritage Commission

SUBJECT:

Evergreen Building - 1285 West Pender Street

RECOMMENDATION

FURTHER THAT this process be a timely one with a report back to the VHC.

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The Development Permit Board (DP Board) made its decision regarding the Development Application for a four storey addition and the adaptive re-use of the “Evergreen Building” following standard process including full public consultation. The DP Board meeting minutes are attached as Appendix C. It was clearly understood by the DP Board that the site was not listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register. It was noted that the owner could pursue the possibilities of having the building placed on the Register, and should that happen, it would then provide other development opportunities, but the owner was not interested. It is not clear how the DP Board’s deliberations and decision may have been different had the building been on the Vancouver Heritage Register as that was not the status of the site before the Board.

If Council is supportive of the Heritage Commission’s recommendation, it would be most appropriate to proceed as follows. Council should request staff to prepare a Statement of Significance and evaluation for listing this property on the Vancouver Heritage Register. If it is then concluded that the building merits listing on the Register, staff should report back on the legal and procedural options for reconsideration of the four-storey addition option.

Therefore, in lieu of A, the City Manager recommends approval of B as follows:

FURTHER THAT if the building merits listing on the Register, the Directors of development Services and Planning report back with legal and procedural options for reconsidering the four-storey addition option.

COUNCIL POLICY

There is no applicable Council policy.

SUMMARY

See below

PURPOSE

The Vancouver Heritage Commission requests Council to review the proposed four-storey addition option of the Evergreen Building at 1285 West Pender Street in the interests of significant heritage preservation.

BACKGROUND

Arthur Erickson designed the Evergreen as an office building for owner John Laxton, mixing office and residential space from the beginning (1978-80). Designed on the diagonal in memory of a former escarpment, the building is stepped in a series of receding, angled balconies. Their alternation creates an interesting light-shadow arrangement. Plantings overflow the concrete brows into which the railings are set, softening the edges of the building’s distinctive sawtooth profile.

In 2003 - 2004, John Laxton commissioned the original architect, Arthur Erickson, to submit a Development Application to adapt the building to residential use. The application included adding 4 storeys as a means of increasing the density to the full conditionally permitted FSR without intruding on the building’s original design, while making its retention and conversion economically feasible. On June 24, 2004, in the context of a policy review of office conversions, Council approved a motion supporting the conversion of the building from office to residential use.

Notwithstanding support from Development Permit staff and the Urban Design Panel, the Application failed to be approved with the four-storey addition. On October 12, 2004, the Development Permit Board approved the Application (2-1) as a Preliminary Development Application subject to conditions including reducing the four-storey addition to two storeys (Appendix A: Development Permit Board Minutes October12, 2004). Heritage values of the site were not formally considered in this decision. Since the economic viability of the project depended on the four-storey addition, the owner has sought other options for the property and is now working with a new architect to submit a development application to replace the Evergreen with a new, taller tower that may be cheaper to build and more marketable; the VHC understands a development permit to that effect may be forthcoming. The Evergreen is now on Heritage Vancouver’s Top Ten Endangered Sites list, warning “City Council must intervene quickly and directly, or else the building will be rubble” (Appendix B: Heritage Vancouver).

DISCUSSION

Heritage Value:

The Evergreen Building is part of the body of work in the distinguished career of a renowned Vancouver architect, Arthur Erickson, ever more precious since it is one of “only a handful” of his major works standing in the urban landscape. To quote Nicholas Olsberg, former Director of the Canadian Centre for Architecture, “none gather his concerns and sensibilities about the urban landscape with as much restraint and discretion as Evergreen” (Appendix C: Nicholas Olsberg). The building is itself unique, both in its sensitivity and adaptation to a difficult site and in configuring the space within the site, respecting the diagonal and emphasizing it with a bold sawtooth profile. In collaboration with the pioneering landscape architect Cornelia Oberlander, its terraced and greenery-planted balconies, recalling a mountainside, gave it the title Evergreen where, like the Law Courts it echoes, Erickson was ahead of his time in the ‘greening’ of public buildings.

Dr. Olsberg argues that Evergreen is also “a model of a new, more intimate and transparent working community – a clustered form that allows for both privacy and sociability, and would be equally relevant to how we might re-think city housing. Its force as a lesson in urbanism should be reason enough to keep it. . . letting this piece of the city’s landscape go now would mean not just pulling down a landmark in the history of architecture, but tantamount to tearing up something that is becoming a parkland.”

Further, an argument that heritage advocates need to make more often and forcefully is that restoration, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings is one of the best ways of achieving the highest level of sustainability in our city.

Heritage Assessment

Unfortunately, the Evergreen Building has no status on the Vancouver Heritage Register as it did not meet the 20-year requirement of the 1990 Recent Landmarks Inventory and therefore its heritage value was not formally accounted for in the Development Permit Board review and deliberations.

The Vancouver Heritage Commission assessment is that the Evergreen Building represents an important part of the architectural and cultural heritage of the City of Vancouver. It believes that the building would merit a high status on the Register, not accounted for in the Development Permit process. It therefore supports adaptive reuse of the building to residential and further supports the 4-storey “lantern” addition since, in its opinion, the adaptation follows good heritage rehabilitation practice in retention, distinguishability and compatibility, in exchange for heritage designation. The VHC supports adding Evergreen to the Heritage Register and advocates for heritage intervention to save the building from demolition for a replacement tower. Believing the matter an imperative one, the VHC requests City Council to find logical and sustainable solutions to preserving this important landmark, in full dialogue and voluntary collaboration with the owner.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications.

CONCLUSION

The VHC is deeply concerned that a landmark building is at risk. The owner tried to preserve the building, engaging its original architect in a sympathetic conversion, within existing FSR and height restrictions. Heritage tools were not in place to ensure that heritage values were accounted for in the Development Permit process. The process has limited the owner’s options and endangered the project. It is critical, therefore, that any further action or recommendations recognize that they require the co-operation of the owner and that any future process be a timely one. Respecting fair public process, sustainability, and the significant heritage value of the Evergreen Building, the VHC requests Council to ask staff to find ways to endorse the four-storey option, and, in voluntary collaboration with the owner, to see what can be done to make this project work to preserve this historically significant model of modernist architecture in our city.

* * * * *

 

APPENDIX A


EXTRACT FROM MINUTES FROM DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BOARD
OCTOBER 12, 2004


3. 1285 West Pender Street– DE408570 – Zone DD
(Complete Application)

Applicant: Evergreen Building Ltd.

Request: Addition of four storeys to an existing 10-storey mixed use building at the above-noted address, alteration of the parkade to construct four two-storey townhouses along W. Hastings Street, and conversion of existing office uses to residential uses (69 units total), save for a 4,701.7 sq. ft. Fitness Centre.

Development Planner’s Opening Comments
Ralph Segal, Development Planner, presented this application, referring to the Development Permit Staff Committee Report dated September 29, 2004, a context model and a project model. He briefly reviewed the immediate context of the site, which is at the end of the 1200 block West Pender Street, bounded by Pender, Hastings, Bute, and Jervis Streets, noting that when the Evergreen building was constructed in the early 1980s Hastings Street did not exist in this location. With respect to the proposal, staff and the Urban Design Panel are satisfied it is an appropriate response from a design point of view. It is considered to be a fairly modest addition to an existing building and quite a neighbourly approach to the surrounding context. The design issues identified are considered to be fine-tuning and will not radically alter the scheme as proposed.
There is an issue relating to parking. The site currently provides 82 parking spaces, which may be able to be increased to 84 or 85. The developer considers an additional 20 spaces would be adequate (total 105). Staff recommend that 115 spaces be provided in accordance with the Parking By-law, with the shortfall of about 30 spaces located and secured off-site.
The Staff Committee recommends approval of the application, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

Questions/Discussion
Mr. Beasley sought clarification regarding the amount of parking recommended by staff and how it compares to other high density, residential locations in the downtown core. Mr. Segal advised that staff concluded that 115 spaces is correct. Five spaces are to be allocated to the Fitness Centre on the ground floor and 110 for the 69 residential units. This equates to about 1.7 spaces per dwelling unit. Mr. Beasley commented it is not unusual to consider support for relaxations for existing buildings. Mr. Rudberg advised staff are prepared to consider a relaxation from the requested 115 spaces, per the Parking By-law, to 105 proposed, provided the developer provides some clear rationale, including options such as car co-ops.
In response to a question from Mr. MacGregor concerning the proposed addition, Mr. Segal confirmed it accommodates eight residential units (two units per floor). The proposal would still be parking deficient without the upper addition, due to the conversion of the existing building from commercial to residential use and the addition of four townhouses at the base. Nick Milkovich, Architect, advised that all the suites in the upper addition are over 1,000 sq.ft., requiring two parking spaces per unit.
Mr. Scobie noted the existing Evergreen building, before conversion of use, is already parking deficient based on current Parking By-law standards which would require 98 parking spaces, as stated in the staff report.
Mr. Rudberg sought confirmation that the developer understands a City sewer is required to be relocated at the developer’s expense, with the cost estimate to be in excess of $400,000. Mr. Rudberg also noted that Hastings Street has been approved by Council as a streetcar route to Stanley Park and he questioned whether this is identified in the conditions. Mr. Segal explained the applicant is aware of the need to allow for the streetcar in the streetscape design but there is no requirement to inform future purchasers.
Mr. Beasley noted that Council has instructed staff to work with owners of existing buildings on Cordova and Hastings Street to retrofit their building bases to provide a better domestic interface with the street, given these are now “front row” streets. Mr. Segal said while this Council policy is not referenced in the Staff Committee Report, the domesticity being sought is achieved with the addition of townhouses at the base of this building. It was noted that this Council policy also allows for consideration of density bonuses and parking relaxation for meeting this goal.
Mr. Henschel sought clarification regarding a letter dated October 7, 2004 from the Barristers representing the structural designer of the original building (circulated to Board and Panel members and on file). The letter raises questions about copyright infringement and the structural integrity of the building with the proposed alterations. Mr. Scobie noted the Development Permit Board does not consider the structural attributes of buildings in its deliberation of development applications. These are matters dealt with under the Building By law and addressed through the Building Permit Application which follows development permit approval and issuance. It is therefore outside the purview of the Development Permit Board. The Board members concurred it is clearly a Building Permit issue.
Bob MacDonald, Parking Engineer, addressed the parking issue. He noted the building does not meeting existing standards for commercial use, being about 12 spaces deficient. If the building were to be converted to residential, without the additional residential floors, the requirement would be about 99 spaces (16 spaces less than proposed). Given most of the units are larger than average and it is a high-end building, Mr. MacDonald said he believes they may need the requested amount of parking to capture the intended market, regardless of Parking By-law requirements; however, Engineering Services concludes there may be some merit to giving some relaxation, and co-op car spaces is a good option.

Applicant’s Comments
Mr. Milkovich said they concur with most the conditions recommended by staff and he said the review by the Urban Design Panel was very useful. He advised the parking issue is currently being studied and investigations are underway to locate at least 20 off-site spaces. He requested amendment to condition 1.1 to reduce the number of required spaces from 115 to 105 and confirmed they will provide a rationale to support this request.
In response to a question from Mr. Beasley about the condition calling for reconsideration of the rooftop trees and overhanging vegetation, Mr. Milkovich said they agree these are inappropriate.
Mr. Milkovich agreed they can consider providing car co-op spaces.
Regarding the sewer relocation, Mr. Milkovich confirmed the owner understands it is a requirement and will be at the developer’s cost.
Mr. MacGregor sought clarification about the rationale for the 4-storey addition, commenting that it appears out of place on this stepped building. Mr. Milkovich explained the existing building has an FSR of 4.9 and the proposed addition is a means of increasing the density to the currently allowable 6.0 FSR, without intruding on the original design. He noted it was originally designed as an extension of the escarpment, which they did not wish to change, so the rationale was to add something lighter and different than the existing building to preserve its image.

Comments from other Speakers
Rick Page read a short passage from the Bible.
Marek Klimick, 1238 Melville Street, questioned why he had not been able to obtain copies of requested material relating to public realm treatment. Mr. Mortensen confirmed that Mr. Klimick’s response to notification was acknowledged and his concerns were included in the notification summary in the report. The Clerk confirmed the Staff Committee Report was posted to the City’s website on October 8, 2004 and hard copies of the report were available late Friday afternoon. Mr. Segal advised the Triangle West Streetscape manual is an implementation document for the use of City crews. The Downtown Design Guidelines and Downtown Character Area Descriptions referred to in the report are publicly available documents and may be viewed on the City’s website. Retail is a permitted use on this site, in accordance with the zoning. Mr. Beasley explained that there are a few areas in the Downtown where retail is required, some where it is prohibited and many others where it is optional. The latter applies to this site, in which case retail use can be considered.
In response to question from Mr. Beasley, Mr. Klimick said he was opposed to the addition of four storeys because the Evergreen is a landmark building and it will detract from the original design. The proposed addition is too massive and does not respect the stepped form of the original building.
Brian Shpak, 1238 Melville Street, referred to his letter dated October 7, 2004. In response to a request from Mr. Shpak, Mr. Mortensen confirmed that he will provide a copy of the Triangle West Streetscape manual to Mr. Shpak and Mr. Klimick. With respect to the parking allocation, Mr. Shpak said he believes three stalls per unit should be provided for this building. He noted that 6.0 FSR is a discretionary maximum for the site, and the Evergreen is the most recent heritage building in Vancouver that should not be destroyed. An addition would be acceptable provided it maintained the stepped form of the building. Mr. Shpak expressed objection to what he considers to be “spot zoning” in this block. He stressed the need for a neighbourhood plan and distributed copies of title searches conducted on properties in the 1200 block West Pender, suggesting that five will be redeveloped within the next five years. He urged the City to contact the property owners to ascertain their future development plans. Mr. Shpak then distributed copies of a June 10, 2004 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada which he said indicates that the scope of immunity formerly enjoyed by the City of Vancouver is no longer unlimited. He also distributed copies of a notice to commence litigation against the City. (Copies of Mr. Sphak’s documents are on file)
David Thom, IBI Group, advised that his firm has occupied the 7th floor of the Evergreen building for a year, and they object to this application. He said their lease provides them with the right to occupy the space for another ten years. The space is unique, there is no comparable space elsewhere in the city and they have no intention of leaving. Mr. Thom expressed concern that by considering this development application, the Development Permit Board is ignoring the rights of existing tenants.
Mr. Scobie noted that the Board assesses whether or not proposals comply with the City’s zoning and land use by laws and guidelines and, if approved, applicants may then proceed to a Building Permit application. Neither permit entitles an owner to develop if there are other constraints that exist, and any such constraints are not within the purview of the Development Permit Board. Mr. Thom confirmed that he understood this position. Mr. Beasley added that he is very sympathetic to any tenant in this situation. It is clear, however, that permit approvals do not take precedence over a tenant’s legal tenure, which has to be resolved between the landlord and tenant before the owner can take advantage of any permit approvals. In response to a question from Mr. Beasley about the proposed conversion, Mr. Thom said there are many reasons the office space works very well for his firm and he noted that most of the employees walk to work. The broader issue is the continued conversion of office space into condominiums, noting that encouraging people to live downtown has been very successful. However, it may have gone too far because a balanced downtown includes employment, and in this particular area that balance has shifted dramatically. He noted that the people who work in the building currently contribute considerably more to the economy of the neighbourhood than will the residents of 69 units.
In response to a question from Mr. Rudberg with respect to Council policy on office/residential conversions in the downtown, Mr. Scobie confirmed that Council considered the subject conversion on June 24, 2004 and supported it, subject to conditions as may be applied by the Board in its deliberations.
Glenn Munro, President of the Palladio Strata Council (1228 West Hastings Street), said the proposal changes the Evergreen in a way that is objectionable and it will have a significant impact on Palladio. Palladio currently faces the easterly concrete wall of the Evergreen, and the proposed addition will worsen the situation. Mr. Munro suggested that a new development on this site would be a taller, slender building which would cause them less impact. He said the proposal is very unfriendly to Palladio. Mr. Munro was also concerned about the structural integrity of the building with the proposed addition.
Questioned by Mr. Beasley about his preference for the site if it were developed to its full allowable density, Mr. Munro advised he did not think the building should be altered and he would prefer an architectural solution that retains its original design. Mr. Segal explained the easterly façade of the Evergreen is very close to the property line which precludes the addition of windows. Additional fenestration may also be inappropriate for privacy reasons, given the Palladio is only 100 ft. to the east. Mr. Segal also noted that the living rooms on the Palladio’s west elevation are oriented towards Jervis Park rather than directly to the subject site. Staff concluded that any addition to the Evergreen should be as low as possible thereby affecting as few Palladio units as possible. Mr. Segal added, there may be ways to improve the articulation of the easterly blank wall, although sometimes simplicity is the best approach. With respect to the site to the immediate east of the Evergreen and west of Palladio, Mr. Segal advised its development potential is seriously compromised by its small size (66 ft.) and the ability to provide parking. It is therefore anticipated that the site may not achieve 6.0 FSR and it would not be a high rise development. It could perhaps be developed to six or seven storeys. Given a building on this intervening site might at best be developed to the height of the existing Evergreen building, Mr. Beasley questioned whether it would be possible to locate all or part of the eastern façade of the proposed addition further west which would permit additional glazing and a better outlook for Palladio residents. In discussion, a representative of the architect explained that the stair well in the proposed addition has to be continuous with what currently exists in the existing building, for safety reasons.
In response to a question from Mr. Scobie as to staff’s preference, Mr. Segal said it would be for the building to remain as it is with townhouses added to the Hastings Streetscape and exploration of an HRA for possible disposition of any additional development capacity via transfer to other site(s). However, the zoning does permit consideration of what is being proposed and staff believe it is an acceptable proposition.
Murray Smith, legal representative of Dr. Bogue Babicki and Babicki & Associates Ltd., referred to his letter dated October 7, 2004. His clients object to the application based on what they believe is a copyright infringement with respect to the structural design of the original building. Noting the Chair’s earlier response that this is a building permit matter, Mr. Smith said they consider it is a legality issue, not a structural issue, i.e., where there are clear legal considerations, of whatever nature, they are matters which should be considered by the Board in the overall exercise of its discretion. Mr. Smith advised his clients believe serious structural issues will arise from the proposal, affecting the original design. They believe the proposed addition will render the structure extremely vulnerable to earthquake shock, potentially resulting in partial building destruction and danger to life. Mr. Smith said there is also a process question arising from the Staff Committee Report because there is much more than the matter of parking to be resolved, as suggested by the Development Planner. As well, Mr. Smith noted the issues raised by the Processing Centre in Appendix C, which includes structural and seismic concerns, do not appear to have been addressed. Mr. Smith requested that the Board seek a position from the applicant regarding the legality and structural issues and to address the process issues.
Mr. Scobie explained that the issues raised in Appendix C are intended to be an early warning to the applicant of building permit requirements they will confront if the proposal achieves development permit approval as submitted. Response to such issues is not a requirement for obtaining a development permit, which requires only an acknowledgment that the applicant is aware of the issues being identified for the building permit stage. In response to a question from Mr. Beasley, Mr. Segal confirmed there are no structural drawings in the materials submitted for reviewing this application. Mr. Beasley thanked Mr. Smith for his advice which he said is a good cue for the applicant but will have to be considered by the official having jurisdiction at the building permit stage.
John Bamberger sought clarification as to public input into the next step in the process. The Chair explained there is no public input at the building permit stage and the Development Permit Board is charged by Council to make decisions on development applications.

Panel Opinion
Mr. Haden advised the Urban Design Panel concluded that if there is to be an intervention to a building of such high architectural integrity then the best approach requires some degree of courage. The Panel considered the overall massing is not out of context with the surrounding buildings and that the general strategy could be resolved in detail in a way that does not destroy the integrity of the original building. Mr. Haden said most of the issues have been addressed in the recommended prior-to conditions, and deal principally with careful detailing and transparency of the addition. Mr. Haden noted that his personal opinion differs somewhat from the Urban Design Panel’s conclusion because he believes it would be better if the addition was smaller, noting the upper two floors are relatively expensive in terms of their net contribution to the city vs. their net diminishment of the architectural integrity of the building, notwithstanding that the site may have the potential to build to 6.0 FSR. Mr. Haden said, however, that if the Board considers 6.0 FSR is appropriate and feasible, then the fundamental solution proposed is appropriate. Mr. Haden said he was sympathetic to the issue of conversion of commercial to residential use, which he noted has been addressed in other forums. With respect to the parking, Mr. Haden said that in general he would prefer to see less parking rather than more. He also noted it is difficult to mandate off-site parking and it effectively reduces the flexibility of parking in the surrounding area. With respect to the Urban Design Panel’s recommendation to reduce the planting on the building, the Panel thought there should be a visual differentiation of the addition. Minimizing the planting would also affect the perceived height of the building and increase the visual lightness of the addition. In summary, Mr. Haden advised the Panel found the proposal to be acceptable but he would personally be more comfortable if the addition were reduced by one or two storeys.
Mr. Henschel said he was not comfortable supporting this application. The added four storeys are ungainly and seem to be kept unnaturally low. He suggested it might be better if the addition was narrower and to add a fifth floor to achieve a more slender and better integrated composition. With respect to parking, Mr. Henschel recommended that the applicant investigate such things as parking machines and the inclusion of spaces for “Smart cars”; more on-site parking is preferable to off-site parking. Mr. Henschel said he believes the application should be deferred until a more sculptural solution is found; otherwise the applicant should be encouraged to seek a heritage density transfer off-site rather than altering the Evergreen which is a modern heritage building.
Mr. McNaney was also not comfortable recommending approval, despite Council policy and the zoning. He said the addition of four storeys is detrimental to the building, although one or two may be acceptable. He strongly opposed the amount of parking being recommended by staff, and questioned whether the current design provides enough street animation. With respect to the eastern façade, Mr. McNaney said it is not very neighbourly and urged that there be a better architectural response on the addition and to improve the easterly façade of the existing building. In summary, he said he did not support the additional four storeys but supported the conversion to residential and the addition of the townhouses.
Mr. Chung did not support the addition because it is too bulky and destroys the stepped design of the original building. He suggested a better solution might be to sculpt the additional storeys, in a slimmer, stepped form. With respect to parking, Mr. Chung said he believed 115 spaces would be sufficient. He also thought the treatment of the easterly façade should be improved.

Board Discussion
Mr. Beasley said he shared a number of the concerns that have been raised. While he appreciated the points raised about the legal and structural issues, these are dealt with at another point in the process and other officials are charged to deal with them. Including a list of items expected to be addressed at the building permit stage, as contained in Appendix C, is simply to give the applicant advance notice. Mr. Beasley added, it is prudent for the applicant to deal with the issues raised if the project proceeds, but said he concurred with the position stated earlier by Mr. Scobie that it is outside the Board’s purview. Mr. Beasley said the tenancy issue raised by Mr. Thom is of serious concern and he advised the applicant that if it is not dealt with it will be difficult to proceed with any development, noting there is nothing in a development permit approval/issuance that overrides the rights of a tenant. When Council considered the conversion of use from commercial to residential and heard Mr. Thom’s concerns, it also indicated the tenancy issue is a business matter between the landlord and tenants. Mr. Beasley said it would be prudent for the applicant to address the matter and he expressed surprise that landlord has not done so to date.
With respect to the proposal itself, Mr. Beasley said two important considerations are the aesthetic judgment of the original architect of the building and the aesthetic judgment of the Urban Design Panel. Both judgments were that some form of addition to the top of the building, of a light and lantern-like character, was consistent with the architectural integrity of the rest of the building. Mr. Beasley said he was not convinced there is no form that will work, particularly given this is one of the more modestly scaled buildings in the vicinity. He supported the position that parking in the Downtown Business District does not have to be the same as elsewhere because a higher proportion of people will walk. He concurred with Mr. Rudberg’s earlier comment that with some meaningful rationale provided by the applicant, including consideration of alternatives such as car co-op spaces, some degree of parking relaxation should be entertained. Mr. Beasley said he was very sympathetic to the concerns raised by the residents of the Palladio with respect to the easterly façade which he agreed is very unneighbourly. While it is partly a short term circumstance until development of the intervening site to the east, where a new building would abut against the Evergreen at the lower levels, it would not extend to the full height of the Evergreen as currently proposed. The easterly façade is not acceptable to the neighbour and it needs significant design development at the higher elevations, noting also that this building has unusually wide blank walls, over half of which is necessary. Mr. Beasley suggested there could be a significant redesign, pulling the proposed building addition back from the easterly property line and adding glazing to create a much more typical façade relationship for the neighbours to the east.
Overall, Mr. Beasley said he believed there are too many issues to approve the proposal as a complete application because the net effect of the conditions, both those recommended by staff and any added by the Board, suggests a significant redesign. He said he would therefore only consider approving the application in principle, with a complete application returned to the Board. He moved approval in principle with amendments to conditions 1.1 and 1.2 and an additional condition 1.7. Mr. Beasley added, his recommendation tries to balance the reasonable expectations of a developer to be treated fairly in developing this site with the reasonable expectation of any member of the public that adjacency issues will be addressed.
Mr. MacGregor did not agree the application should be dealt with as a preliminary. He was not prepared to second Mr. Beasley’s motion. He said there are three issues: 1. the use conversion, which Council has supported, 2. the additional storeys, and 3. parking. Without the additional storeys, the parking is not an issue. Mr. MacGregor said he could not support the addition of four storeys for eight units because it impacts what is an iconic building, although he may be able to consider one additional floor. Mr. MacGregor said he did not believe a land owner necessarily has the right to achieve the maximum FSR on this site unless it is an entirely new building. In this situation there are a number of constraints. Mr. MacGregor said he agreed with a delegate who referred to the proposed building addition as objectionable and not friendly. He said he appreciated the advice of the Urban Design Panel but he did not support the proposal at all. He said he would be prepared to deal with the application, as a complete, with amendment to condition 1.1 and 1.2, to maximize parking within the building and to limit an addition to one storey.
Mr. Rudberg agreed with Mr. Beasley that the proposal should only be considered as a preliminary application because there are too many unresolved design issues. He said he could support a one- or two-storey addition with some re-massing and redesign but could not support anything more than two storeys. He agreed the Evergreen is a unique and notable building in the downtown core. He also suggested that treatment of the easterly façade of the addition could be addressed in a preliminary application. He agreed with Mr. Beasley’s recommendation with respect to the parking. Mr. Rudberg also noted that Council has approved the routing of a streetcar by this site at some time in the future and this will need to be taken into account in the design of the Hastings Street façade.
Mr. Beasley said that without a redesign he could not tell which option is correct – whether it is a 1 to 4-storey addition or a 5 storey addition, much thinner and set back so that it can be properly glazed and create a good relationship to the neighbours. He said he was not convinced there is no solution that might be significantly narrower but slightly higher given the Evergreen is not a high building in this context.
Mr. Rudberg said he was unable to support Mr. Beasley’s position and could not second his motion.
Mr. MacGregor moved approval as a complete application, with amendments to the conditions to allow a one-storey addition. This was not supported by Mr. Beasley or Mr. Rudberg.
During subsequent discussion in search of a decision that two – if not all three – voting Board members could support, Mr. Beasley was not prepared to support a level of specifity with respect to the height. Mr. Rudberg said he would support a one- to two-storey addition and other amendments with respect to parking and treatment of the upper easterly façade. In discussion, Mr. MacGregor advised he could support Mr. Rudberg’s recommendation for one- to two-storeys provided it is approved in principle, as a preliminary application.

Motion
It was moved by Mr. Rudberg, seconded by Mr. MacGregor, and was the decision of the Board:
THAT the Board APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE the concept of developing this site as generally outlined in Development Application No. DE408570, for the addition of up to two storeys to an existing 10-storey mixed use building at the above-noted address, alteration of the parkade to construct four two-storey townhouses along West Hastings Street, and conversion of existing office uses to residential uses, save for a 4,702 sq.ft. Fitness Centre, all subject to the following conditions:
Amend 1.0 to read:
Prior to submission of a complete application and a final decision, revised drawings and information shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, clearly indicating:;
Amend 1.1 to read:
provision of the by-law required parking spaces or a reduced amount based on a sound rationale submitted by the applicant, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning in consultation with the General Manager of Engineering Services;
Amend 1.2 to replace “4-storey” with any upper storey addition;
Amend the Note to Applicant in 1.2 to add: The glass colour of the addition should be as transparent as possible given consideration of energy efficiency;
Add 1.7:
design development to the southeast façade of the building to be more neighbourly to people to the east, in consultation with residents in the Palladio to the southeast;
Note to Applicant: The redesign should have regard for the expected form of adjacent future development on the adjoining site to the southeast.
Amend 2.0 to read:
That the standard conditions set out in Appendix A be met prior to submission of a complete application;
Amend 3.0 to read:
That the complete application be dealt with by the Development Permit Board;
Amend the preamble in Appendix A to read:
The following is a list of conditions that must also be met prior to submission of a complete application.;
Add B.2.5:
This site is adjacent to future transit facilities including street car.
CARRIED
(Mr. Beasley opposed)

Appendix B
Heritage Vancouver Top Ten Endangered Sites
This year marks publication of the fifth annual Heritage Vancouver Top Ten Endangered Sites.
It was difficult to keep the list to ten: the explosive real estate development market is placing even designated sites once thought safe - like Chinatown and Gastown - in extreme jeopardy. That designated heritage sites are on our list is cause for great concern, as is the state of the Heritage Register - itself endangered and urgently requiring resuscitation! The sites finally chosen are either already in critical danger or likely be so shortly.
This year's No. 1 is a new entry - the houses of Yaletown. Woodward's remains on our list as Number 2, while another new entry, Arthur Erickson's Evergreen Building, is in third place.

3. Evergreen Building (1285 W. Pender) This modern landmark is a new addition to the HV Top Ten list and requires prompt action by City Council to preserve. Arthur Erickson designed the Evergreen as an office building for owner John Laxton. Completed in 1980, the Evergreen's unique stepped terraces and hanging gardens were configured to create the experience of working on a mountainside. Unlike other office buildings, every floor has access to outdoor patio space - an ideal condition for residential conversion. Erickson took full advantage of the stepped configuration, creating complex geometries through the interplay of off-set zigzag and linear floor plates, each floor diminishing in floor area within a trapezoidal building footprint. But, according to Laxton, the Evergreen's smaller upper-floor areas are a disadvantage in the current office market, while the location has high residential demand due to spectacular views and amenities. The existing office building is only 10 storeys (about 130') in a zone that permits a tower height of up to 300'. Considering conversion to residential, Laxton concluded that additional floor space was needed to improve financial return. To address compatibility with the original design, Laxton retained Erickson, who designed a light, 4-storey, glass and steel box - intended to resemble a lantern - on the roof of the existing building. The additional floors would bring the total height to 175'. Unfortunately, the building has no heritage protection as it did not meet the 20-year age requirement of the 1990 Recent Landmarks Inventory. Early in the development review process, the City offered Laxton a 'transfer of density' - the purchase of additional floor space for use elsewhere - in return for heritage designation. Laxton declined, claiming time constraints; in September 2004, City staff supported the proposed addition, stating the building "has heritage merit as a very good example of contemporary architecture and as an early example of Arthur Erickson's terrace building typology." City Council agreed, advising the City's Development Permit (DP) Board of its preference. To the surprise of many, however, the DP Board (an independent panel) refused to approve the conversion application due to the size of the proposed addition. Displeased, Laxton responded that, unless the decision is reversed, he will replace the Evergreen; a 300' tower, he claims, would be cheaper to build and more marketable than conversion of the existing building. Rumour has it that designs for a new building are already in the works. Let's face it: from a design perspective, the Evergreen Building would be better off without the 4-storey addition. Nevertheless this contemporary landmark is worth saving, with or without the addition. City Council must intervene quickly and directly, or else the building will be rubble.

Appendix C

Erickson’s Evergreen Building

There are only a handful of major works by Arthur Erickson standing in the urban landscape, and none that gather together his concerns and sensibilities about the urban landscape with as much restraint and discretion as Evergreen. It was made at the high point of his maturity, and after fifteen years working with concrete, a medium that he calls the “muse” that triggers his architectural poetry. Designed as the Law Courts and their cascading plazas were nearing completion, Evergreen translates to a modest, economical everyday workplace the great ideas of Robson Square – using the building itself to shift the levels of the cityscape and the scale of its forms to relieve the relentless up and down procession of tombstones on a grid of roadways, walls and alleys. Evergreen from every distance and to the passerby sets up a moment where the rhythm and the view are refreshed. And it does much more. Evergreen does not just talk to the topography of Vancouver, but it helps to make it, building a little mountain at the water’s edge that reflects the great slopes of terraced homes, rock and greenery on the other side of the Strait. With its white marine trim, dark glass and twisting shelves of balcony, it reconciles the lively disorder of the harbor front to the rigid scale and corporate geometry in the forest of towers behind it. By offering the ‘executive’ pleasures and prestige of light, vista and a balcony to virtually every space within it, Evergreen democratizes the office and sets up a cluster of outdoor meeting places that break down the hierarchies within it. Above all, by sending green space gently skywards, it serves, like an ancient hanging garden, to draw nature into the backdrop of the streetscape.
 
Losing Evergreen would be losing one of the very rare examples, anywhere in the world, of inventing, within a speculative building made to fit the challenging economics of standardization, a model of a new, more intimate and transparent working community – a clustered form that allows both for privacy and sociability, and would be equally relevant to how we might re-think city housing. Its force as a lesson in urbanism should be reason enough to keep it. But as the metropolis grows around it (as Erickson had studied and knew it would) it is gradually becoming a wonderfully familiar and subtle sight: letting this piece of the city’s landscape go now would mean not just pulling down a landmark in the history of architecture, but tantamount to tearing up something that is becoming a parkland. An oasis of nature painting in an expanding desert of pavement, glass and steel would be gone. It is a work fraught with anticipation, and not for nothing is it called “Evergreen.” This generous master work was imagined as a terraced garden that would be there, ever green, to refresh the eye as we encounter it from across the straits it faces, from the towers above it, and from water’s edge, like the moss-and-fern-grown ledges of rock that rise up a bank on the shores of a real forest.
 
Nicholas Olsberg
16.2.05

* * * * *

pe20050331.htm