Ah yes, the Miami Beach of English Bay: Ocean Towers.

 

From Changing Vancouver:

The design – seen in the 1960s on the left – represented a dramatic break from the early 1950s zoning of the West End, which allowed eight-storey buildings, many of which (like the Sylvia) were built to meet that limit. Buildings could theoretically go higher if they were thinner, and this tower is very skinny from north to south, but almost a full block east to west.

While the ‘Miami modernist’ look was admired by some, the scale of the building and its effect on the buildings behind made it few friends. It was opposed by the Town Planning Commission, the city’s Technical Planning Board, the Vancouver Housing Authority and the Community Arts Council. Council approved it anyway, but the perceived negative impact of this building and a few others built in the same era ensured they would be the last.

Design guidelines required narrower buildings with space between them when later residential areas were planned, and new towers added to the West End. That’s still true today, as the experience of this tower continues to determine tower design not just in the city of Vancouver, but throughout Metro Vancouver. 

There has been debate on how much heritage value Ocean Towers should be given.  There’s no question of its historical merit; its time and place guarantee that.  But it is rather an abominable urban intrusion: it walls off the West End, totally blocking the views of everyone behind for blocks, creates a wind tunnel on Denman, paves over the site from one end to the other, and offers nothing to the passers-by.  Not a neighbourhourly building, as City Planning Director Ray Spaxman would say, who did everything needed to prevent it from happening again.   Hence the point tower and view corridors, deliberate or otherwise.

But heritage designation can kind of imply that, if it’s worth preserving, it’s worth repeating.  And even though I live in one that is a lot like it, if it fell down, it shouldn’t be rebuilt.

Though there’s not much that can be done about its failures, it’s not too late to address one great deficiency – the parking lot at the back.

 

Imagine that asphalt lot filled with rowhouses along a mews, landscaped as lushly as, of all things, the parking garage next door at the Sylvia.  Here’s the contrast.

Would it be appropriate to add more density to a building that is probably at the maximum allowed?  Who benefits?  What kind of housing? Where does the parking go?

But regardless, is it not time to replace a parking lot with people’s homes?

 

 

Comments

  1. … and if you look backwards during the Celebration of Light, you’ll see that the large facade reflects the fireworks beautifully – which you can’t get from skinnier buildings.

  2. Thanks for the post – the rear parking area is definitely in need of an improvement!

    However, the project as a whole is one of my favorite buildings in the city – the suites are single loaded (full width of the structure) with air, view, and ventilation open to both main facades , accessed by an ingenious and very compact central circulation spine of exit stairs and elevator.
    They might be the desirable units in the West End. And across the street from the beach.

    To your point about blocking views – there is so much existing development in the West End that the terms ‘view corridors’, and ‘point towers’, are irrelevant – and once a few more of these 60 storey monsters go up around the Thurlow area and the Georgia corridor there won’t be any sun reaching the street level anyway.
    I would further argue that the ‘Point Tower on Podium’ typology so beloved by city hall has created a banal and exurban city core – ‘nice’ but boring.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *