2 People Downtown

who cannot. those or it afford can who those

about talking we are whether core, city inner downtown

very this outside but seriously, very at looking be

we you should with I agree which children, on activity

policy my focus rather I’d area. this in youngsters

of lot a put to try to of dollars terms in service

a us does really it that sure not I’m because primarily

children, discuss didn’t I schools. existing the to get

to order in End into West the Davie Street and Street

Denman along down trotting o!ds eight-year or six-

the have or shore; south the on to schools get to order

Creek in False across systems ferry equip to having

of problems the see then and area, this in youngsters

token to few a put trying than rather schooled, already

that are areas in sites, housing scattered smaller

redevelopment?” for look to better be probably would we subsidies,

to done ensure that this happens the in

government they so heavy and important, quite requiring be what if should income, modest very or

mix population the in urban core?” “Are

assistance on social “How ‘single-mother’ are important the children the to the about talking

year, students a

question my is, and

we’re if that even and in, families to focus we a at rate decline, 1,800 that 1,900 of to

year

over ten for

We’re

continuing years.

areas the be city the rest see of the rather would I 2,100 has system that lost over a students

children,

we as come a particularly from

the city. in block every child a on have to need I that mention no presentations, is there the of

noticing

three that these very in excellent

think

don’t policy, I housing family at looking was I If Moir: just I Mr. couldn’t help Chairman,

to.

the relates up School whatever Board to is city. the of other area choose parts over this to afford

the some town to and stitching degree

the well goes network down beyond which a to to able be with youngsters, school-age particularly

certainly a of You School part Board. are

the patiently of waiting--member Vancouver children, with numbers of large to families expect

a been has Moir recognize very who Mr.

a This to be chance could Oberlander: to somewhat notion a is think I it town, romantic tend

at the in down this Looking area particular McAfee:

2.1 AND FAMILIES CHILDREN

2 people downtown

U. U 2.2 SUBSIDIES FOR DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS

McAfee: I would like to touch on another facet of involvement of senior governments, and that is the issue of funding for people who might want to live in the downtown but are unable to afford this luxury. I think I should clarify the impression that I might have given. I was not insinuating that families should not live downtown, I can show you many, many families who would very much like to live in the downtown. Unfortunately they do not have the effective finances rto do so. We have evaluated the kind of subsidies that might be necessary to encourage my secretary to move into the downtown with her two children, and we would

likely be talking somewhere in the order of $600 - $700 per month subsidy to have a modest wage-earning secretary living in the downtown core.

I might point out that the only level of government at the moment, senior government, prepared to put funding into family housing is CMHC, but even their funding will not bring private market land in the inner city core down to an affordable price. The economics just do not work. The Provincial government feels that family housing is not their responsibility and no funding is forthcoming.

So I’m tossing out on the table a dilemma. It may be delightful to have families with children in the down town, but if the family requires this kind of six to r seven hundred dollar per month subsidy, are we better off to take our limited subsidy dollars and put them in -j 10

f -. The provision of facilities Such as tne West End Coniimnity Centre requires a large population and use of valuable land. Is this realistic for the Downtown? j v ?. . pbTh. 4.

0W3 1i1• i•wc fl

60 $700 chunks per family per month in the downtown, or should we consider less expensive land somewhere else, where we could help maybe two families? That is the dilemma we are facing, and it is not that it would not fl be nice to have a mixture of kiddies, and certainly there is no reason why the units there can not be very well designed for children, it’s just that there exists a heavy economic expenditure of public monies.. I don’t see those monies on the table yet.

Ford: In the case of the Downtown East Side you say that approximately 2,000 people have traditionally lived there over the years. It is worth while to give a sizeable subsidy to keep those people there because we would not want to disrupt their lives. But when you consider a subsidy to get your ‘drop-out’ friends down H there, you would have to look at how this might be done, because if you want to subsidise people in the downtown, we want people who are working, not people who are not going to work. That subsidy is not going to solve many :.r:

of their problems. If subsidies are going to attract - other people downtown, we really do not need to subsidise the downtown.

Ross: Mr. Chairman, I was listening to Dr. McAfee talking earlier and she projects 15 million additional square feet of office space in the downtown area. Dividing that by 100 we have a working population of 150,000 people. They may as well live down there, because they will never get in and outs

Turner: To get people downtown, means that we are going to see them in groups, and therefore we are going to deal with the West End and the 38,000 people living there, and other pockets of residential activity that will be generated.

61 ______

rfk . J

2.3 STREETS

Freschi: If there were streets, if the City could commit itself, to some streets and areas, then I believe that even loft warehouses, could be family accomodation, of a very exclusive kind, as well as lower incomes. What we don’t have at the moment is a willingness to consider mixed use in buildings, offices we have no urban design plan for some (nder: Incidentally, your numbers and so on, which are fascinating, are not necessarily to be reasonable pedestrian streets for the the result of changes in the physical form, streets it’s a demographic fact that Western Canada aged and children, and that’s one of the things that’s I is going in this direction and while it’s going rapidly in the City, even the suburbs -i are now heading into a similar situation, really missing. which ten years ago, nobody would have anticipated. Despite the fact that the gures were all there. Whatever street it is, whichever street.

Waisman: I was in Amsterdam about a week and a half ago, the city was real. I keep forgetting the magic of walking down a street and seeing a mixture of trees and cars, children and people, warehouses and stores, houses

and commercial establishments - the very fabric that makes a city what it is. We are so absolutely pure here

and dull and uninteresting - and not necessarily safe, and I often wonder if we sometimes get a little too much planning. The opportunity to have children is a very personal thing, so I was rather fascinated by the ideas you threw in there... if we could somehow develop that openness at City Hall.

Turner: Functions even in Amsterdam are gregarious. When you look carefully at Amsterdam, you will find there is a great deal of stratification. As a tourist we enjoy Amsterdam and it feels very vibrant, but when you look at it very carefully there are certain groups of shops always together, certain groups of housing

62 The drama and action of the streets of Gastown corpare with the coldness on Georgia Street.

63 always together, we feel the jumble, we’re not really used to reading the local socio-economic patterns. My office is in the Old City in Jerusalem, again, people say how vibrant it is, yet I look at it and I can tell you it is very clearly stratified. No planner came along and consciously designed it that way, but that is how it works now.

We need to bring back the vibrance, but not by copying Amsterdam.

Dairymple: I would just like to comment on the quality of the street as Bruno Freschi was suggesting. I was recently doing some preliminary design work on a Hotel in Chinatown for conversion for DERA--.for low cost housing for elderly people.

The Chinatown ‘rules’ say that you have to provide Urban Form commercial uses on the ground floor, with the Street High-density developments generate a sense active. You have to build within that neighbourhood in of visual excitement in the Central Area. At the same time they introduce concerns on the manner that people already use the Street, the such matters as obstruction of views, over shadowing of other buildings and public neighbourhood, and the buildings; it is a wonderful mix spaces, disrespect for established neighbour hood character, and questions of human of use. They seem to be able to do it in Chinatown, scale at Street level. but we don’t do it in the Downtown. It is almost like New development controls have provided the means of ensuring better quality de two parallel ways of life, one which seems to be working velopments. However, development control alone is not enough to ensure an attractive, very well in terms of excitement and •inner city living. livable, urban environment.. Then you look at Beatty Street which I think has that Further work is needed. The streetscape, the relationship of the man-made city to the potential, by allowing commercial uses on the ground natural environment and the impact of the physical paraphernalia of urban living, must floor. But the rules there are quite different from the all be taken into account rules in Chinatown, although it is also the City of CHALLENGE: Vancouver. What further means are necessary to improve the attractiveness and live- ability of our urban environment? Turner: We really need the opporunity for innovation to take place. Is the structure of the bye-laws such that something special can take place, which is the vitality of our downtown areas? Can it allow a bit of Gastown, a bit of Chinatown, a bit of Yaletown, a bit of all these towns put together?

64 Fl

3 costs of recycling

3.1 EXTRA COSTS

Freschi: There seems to be no limit to what people will Brown: I wonder if I could ask Bruno a pay to develop a downtown renovation like that of Dr. question about costs, because, I find that fl people are enthusiastic about this approach. Spence-Sales. There are people lined up to buy units but the question I am always asked, or the comment I always hear is—-the cost, in this building. It’s absurd, but they are bidding relative to knocking something down and starting over again. against each other to get in. And in fact, the sky’s Is a lot of the extra cost related to the code, upgrading buildings to present—day the limit in respect to the sale price. In fact, I’m standards of the code? not the owner of the project, I’m just a minor investor, Does that make things unduly complicated when you’re recycling? I stayed an investor just to find out. What is Is that what stops us from reusing our happening? Well, there’s two things: lding stock? fl (i) Direct Building Costs: it’s almost always less expensive to knock a building down and re-build. Regardless of what everybody says. Unfortunately, that’s the truth. I believe though, that the returns you get from an old building, are not found anywhere else, and therefore an immeasurable return is generated. (ii) Building Code: the project process is now roughly two years, and we had a building designed and costed by r prior to applying to and getting outside professionals into in-depth discussions with regard to the building itself, and since these subsequent discussions with City Hall officials our costs have increased 40% as a result of meeting the Building Code.

Now, one could say, ‘well, get rid of the Code,’ but we all know it’s there for very good reasons. However, F I think there are a great number of reasons, a great number of issues, that are arbitrarily imposed because

rr the building inspector seemingly does not have the authority to relax the Code. For example: we are 2 feet over the high-rise definition, thus affecting elevator costs, sprinkling costs and so on.

A great deal of independent study has to be done, to identify specifically where the changes in the Code could be made.

Exit stairs are the worst place in the building to deal with, and that’s been common knowledge in the profession for a long time. We are forced to meet exactly the Code requirements in this building, and because of the unique configuration of two- and three-storey differences between one side of the building and the other, for which there is no definition, we have to grapple with far-reaching and meaningless clauses.

Turning virtue from necessity Exit stairs for changing fire regulations, have become unique architectural features in North America. U

So I think that one could safely say that disregarding sale price (which I can tell you is in excess of $175 a square foot, and going up, believe it or rot)... the building costs could be substantially less. If there was some rethinking on the Code, to have it understood in spirit and not in letter, to have it relaxed officially, you could reduce the costs by up to 40 per cent

66 U ______

3.2 THE PROVISION OF PARKING

The little parkade across the for, I Freschi: street Oberlander: Someone from City Planning? believe 28 cars, does not match the 31 residential units Eric? in the project, but that hasn’t seemed to be problem a Crickmore: Could I ask another question on with resepct to the purchasing of units. That parking costing? To me, this project is the third known conversion of an existing building garage will cost almost half a million dollars. There into residential accomodation in the down town area. The one at 1104 Homer Street, is also a tennis court on its roof, and because of the and the other, Dr. Spence’s at 578 Beatty Street have no parking. Your building is character of that street, we imposed a piece of facade, fortunate in being able to solve the parking problem, and the majority of people who have literally design-copied the arch on the front elevation. come and talked to me about conversion of existing buildings, have very complex That is an additional half-million dollars which one problems indeed, with parking. We are talking about people who are going to need can say is about a 10-12% increment on the total costs. a car and there seems to be a consensus that a car is essential to go with a dwelling Now you cannot drive a car into this building as far as unit for this type of market; what is the impact on your costs had you to accomodate the City parking standards with respect to clearances, parking within your building, or could you have proceeded with the development at all? widths, parking spaces, except I do - all the time - I’ve driven my car in and around and parked it. It has two large doors at the back, trucks have been in and around it, but it will not meet the City standards. I’m sure you don’t need parking in terms of working and living in the building. There will be two artists 1 studios, that I know of, and their cars, directly beside them on the lower level. To meet city requirements would be out of the question. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 8748 550-554 BEATTY ST. LANE BRUNO FRESCHI ARCHITECTS HAS APPLIED TO THE CITY OF VANCOUVER FOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A TWO- STOREY PARKING STRUCTURE TO PROVIDE: I

• 34 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES

FURTHER INFORMATION 50’

— CALL 873-7613 ZONING ENQUIRIES - CITY HALL BEATTY ST. Ii ci U

3.3 INSURANCE DUE TO DIMINISHED CODE RESPONSIBILITY

Freschi: Insurance is not the problem. In fact the lower level is designed for all of that. Commercial ur insurance still valid? J space, as existing, might be rented by a painter who is going to have noxious fumes and other inflammable —i hazards. In fact, it’s all surfaced to possibly take cars in the future, when neighbouring B.C. Place has its plans together, indicating linkage to our frontage. We have already designed a ramp and rails to cross. Every beam in that building had to be computerized and tested, so there are minute readings of every beam in the building, to prove that it was structurally stable with regard to the additional material and weights we had to add. That’s what I’m talking about, when I’m talking about exaggerations in the Code, and their interpretation. It is more than enough for professional responsibility.

PROJECT NAME - iS0 SCATTY SfREET 46O. 797 DON MILLS ROAD

PROJECT LOCATICU — VANCOUVER DUN NILLS ONrAR:ro — MSC lvi

FLOOR * * FLOOR LOAD * MEMBER 4 * TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION * DIMENSIONS * LENG rH * TIME OF FAILURE * MODE OF FAILURE * (IN INCHES * ([N INCHES) * *

I * 110 fEW * COLUMN I .10 1 SOLID S,’RUCE * 11.5 ,11 .5 * 150 * 106 MiNUTES * SUCKLING

-— 4 * 110 PSF * COLUMN 1 19 * SOLID SPRUCE I 11.5 x 11.5 * 130 * 108 MINUTES * BUCKLING —

4 * 110 PSF * COLUMN 1 20 * SOLID SPRUCE * 11.5 x 11.5 * 130 * 96 MINUTES * BUCKLING

4 :1 ItO PSF * COLUMN 1 21 * SOLID SPRUCE * 11.5 11,5 * 130 I 96 MINUTES * DUCKLING

An extract from the structural engineer’s It seems to have generated a new market though. It computer report on the extra loading of the building, seems to be the professionals, related to the city core that have the greatest interest. It is very closely related to the events in the city-- the Queen Elizabeth Theatre, the Playhouse, and now this amphitheatre,’

stadium. I’m overwhelmed by the number of people - now that is at the upper-middle and upper income U bracket - who are interested in the creation of this cocoon in the city centre. 68 3.4 COST OF RESTORATION

Gibson: With the help of Architect Richard Henriquez we are renovating aer: Let me introduce Ed Gibson, Douglas Lodge at 12th and Granville, who, in a different way is trying something which is a designated building comparable. Ed is involved in a much larger, within the City. enterprise, and perhaps you could address yourself to the Because it is all privately owned, the approach was question of both the code slightly different. As opposed to re-cycling, we are restoring, particularly the exterior, and therefore the costs are much higher than taking the historicist route that you had taken, because there is a difficulty not only meeting the Code, but obtaining materials for the exterior at a reasonable cost. Douglas Lodge at 12th and Granville 4 regulators & their 0 regulations

Li 4.1 COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH VARIANCES U Waisman: I completely concur with the remarks. We [ Oberlander: There are three or four need the codes and everything that’s happening, but I i practicing architects here.... do you want I to say something about that very point? j think Bruno made a very good point, and really I ‘in addressing this to the Alderpersons here. We have our rules and they are black and white, and for 2 feet or 70 feet or 100 feet, you say no. But these rules are absolutely arbitrary, and if there is some form of Committee at City Hall that would accept the fact that there is more than one point of view and that these things aren’t as black and white as they are supposed to be. Very often, they were developed by the flip of a coin. If we could develop a committee that could sit and listen to the type of thing that Bruno is doing, and understand the principles, then there would be

From City Planning Department Publication GENERAL C0MMUN

S ‘.9 4 • o ‘? OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT CITY — federal PLANNING CITY COUNCIL COMMISSION — provincial

— regional

The ELECTORATE a allowed some variance without affecting the code, or the principles, and in effect we could start creating a ci ty.

Waisman: From what I have been told, I do know that in other cities with Appeal Boards it’s a lot easier to get there and you don’t need thirty-five experts to make your point. ( Ford: Does the Board of Appeal not helP?J Not really. Issues are so absolutely black and white, that I was thinking of the type of problem Harold Spence-Sales had to confront--to put his residence through as a custodian or whatever is absolutely debilitating, it’s just not necessary. Here is an exciting man in an exciting city and we have rules that say he can’t do one of the most exciting things that any of us has seen.

Oberlander: But he’s done itf

Ford: But there’s no difference between residential requirements for a caretaker or an owner.

Spence-Sales: There was something rather special about it though, all the administrative pundits who I spoke with quietly, said “why confront the notion of a simple residential conversion, involving yet another use?” and instead of that they recommended the caretaker fl apartment. Not only that, I was really very well advised on how to present drawings, so you could hardly read them.

Murray: Now, about having been advised to go through as ‘caretakers’... This is a dilemma that I think those practicing in architecture feel; on one hand we have a responsibility to perform according to the code; and on the other hand we realise these problems and question whether to advise our client to go ahead and do

contrary. the quite was intention No. The Murray:

it? was the intention, not was That Oberlander:

of Board Variance. the

to the it sent At we Murray: hour eleventh

simple That’s and straighforward.

the variance. for opportunities come under

is doesn’t not it ‘use’ therefore used, word

the that changed, can be conditions except

the certain byelaw, says that in Murray

be Charlotte now. Let’s clear Oberlarider:

U •

the byelaw! wrote Ford: They

says not.

Murray: legal the Unfortunately, department’

Badly that Oberlander: is written, right?

at. were aiming

wel of uses lConiiient:But things was

the one

up on... held you’re things

technical the silly It’s use. concerning byelaws or

rulings to relax Planning of Director the allowing

not byelaw, that of a shortfall It’s effectively.

byelaws these use can you that no way was there said,

lawyers The hyelaws. Heritage new use the to advised

we were though Variance, of Board the to apply to had

therefore We change. of kind that for codes building

the in provision no is

there area residential -

a in use residential conforming a nearly to use

warehouse non-conforming a from building a changing

use: of a case in problem, similar a we had residence,

J a personal or caretaker a it’s whether But Murray:

pay. you price the that’s and

a life is life a that view the to take want would here

us of none presumably, and seven, or 40 deaths either

have you still the margin, at words other In later. or

sooner death, and of life a question still is it Ross,

Mr. by explained was it as see, you But Oberlander:

happens. regularly and this by,

it slip and to try is thing sensible the that know You

you do? do what here, presented as problem renovation

a with

confronted you are when except idea, wonderful

-d

a profession to the on

passed to be code building --

the within lie that responsibilities the of some

for opportunity an was this and course, code building

a took recently I to do. thing most reasonable the

is it know we when right, not exactly is that something McGrath: Well I think we’re part of both. For example, I Oberlander: Before we focus too much on the} the National Building Code, has become very I local government, how about the Federal or Iprovincial? I have on my left, Mr. McGrath prescriptive, and I think we have all lost sight of its Ifrom CMHC. Are you being part of the r Lfroblem, or part of the solution? intent, and with each successive year it becomes slightly more complex by the cutting off of loopholes that existed previously. I would like to see the Code do what CMHC did with their site planning criteria. Get back to basics and see what is the real intent and what we want to achieve. Then we need to put down some general statements rather than specifics. For example: a high-rise building is obviously intended to have ‘x’ storeys of building. Whereas there are differences in floor to ceiling heights of 10 or 12 feet, people who interpret the code often will not allow for that. They will read the absolute height literally, and that is something we will never get away from. An example of CMHC site planning criteria used for tenant participation

Is this the solution to all planning guidelines?

73 ?W 1sSPi [J

4.2 DETERMINATION OF VARIANCES BY OFFICIALS

Crickmore: It is my understanding and knowledge, that it is not the building inspector that is the main fault here, but the legal system. Until the entry of the National Building Code, the city building inspectors used to exercise a great deal of latitude in the administration of the building byelaws, I think I used to grumble that they were too flexible, you never knew U what the answer was; they were very liberal in their way of interpretation. Then came the National Building Code, resulting in some significant legal interpretations in the Courts, which makes the building inspector personally liable for the actions and decisions that he makes.

Interjection: This decision was overturned. Thomson: The court case in White Rock, referred to Crickmore: I understand there is some legal earlier, has had a terrific psychological impact on so liability which makes it more difficult for that person to be liberal and exercise his many people. City Hall staff allude to it continuously U latitude. out the Henriguez: That was a very interesting that eventually I had my solicitor dig point. We have heard that many before, that recommendations, where Dr. Justice Berger held that if case was in White Rock or somewhere, and it was overturned, it’s not ture z,ut it’s all the City had to do to avoid the responsibility was always brought up, and still liicj-rs in the minds of the inspectors. not to inspect, there would be chaos, and therefore he absolved everyone, but held a building inspector personally liable for costs and damages. A few years later it was thrown over and completely repudiated by the court of appeal, but the damage has been done, because it is the line of every building inspector, U that the case on his desk may be slightly different from the ones in White Rock, and he may be personally responsible. Until we can get a climate where the

71L staff are spared the fear of personal involvement, I cannot see us restoring old buildings. It is far r to put up a brand new structure, than to go easier am through the hassle of trying to rehabilitate. I a aware that the National Research Council is writing section on the older buildings at the present time, but we cannot expect it for another three years.

Freschi: Older buildings need a unique set of rules. It is an in-depth research project. No one developer or agency could afford to do it, the City of Vancouver, I would suggest, could, and it could go before the National Building Code and clarify this. There is a procedure within the Code to do this. It is a two- year process to do it properly, but I think the initiative has to come from a body as important as and as large as the City of Vancouver to achieve these

changes. It has been done before - and can be done again.

From the Quarterly Review; City Planning Department

- Development Control

The Central Aiea’s Official Developnent Plans and Zoning By4aws have replaced traditional regulations with flexible, quality V oriented controls and an open discretionary decision making system 1 Quality of development has Improved with the V new system but further Improvements ire considered necessary in the speed of pro. — cessing and in the provision of certainty to 1 J applicants. I CHALLENGE: How can the City further improve Its development con trol system in order to achieve more efficiency and greater certainty to applicants, while, at the same time, maintaining exaiting flexibility, pemiem, and osientation to development quality? —_____

Oberlandr: The answer is perhaps to have some other device, but Al’s point is flexibility, and some, within a narrow limit, judgement. Brown: What process do we need to get there;the Building Board of Appeal is the proper place to go? 75

developments.

the cf meetings who Devetonment make Board new Permit on decis;ons the

and The oevelopment attend can the in particpate pblc proposals. also

on to are addition ne there In infcrmaton provs!ons Doblicize

environment.

to the architectural individual for complementary being expression white

Central and fabric prdv;de Area. the of allow flexibility regulations The

and to form should regulations the result new improvements These in

Centrai in Area. the Guidelines effect are in now

and Plans; Development Zoning Design Planning By-laws, New Official

for permits Way New material of •A preparation the

puolication Depoitr-nt Planning City From

c—i

conditions. new and buildings new for written

really are

which rules the of some evaluate to rather but traps,

fire- new with hog-wild go industry development the let

to not exemptions, own its write could it commitment,

this on took City the If housed. could be who housed

not are who people of number great a be must really

there notion, the Heritage and whatever, or restoration

re-cycling, rehabilitation, of idea the to committed

was the City that. If to facilitate regulations

some from itself has and exempted know, we anything

as dangerous is potentially as which construction)

frame four-storey city is this of (half construction

frame four-storey has facilitated Vancouver of City

the fact, In code. that of from aspects itself exempt

could the city, as such by definition, authority the

whereby procedure a has it and existing, for reasons

good has very probably It Vancouver. downtown in

buildings and high-rise islands the one of on cottage

experience.

covers code and a It’s blanket general adapted.

on speak let’s then 1erlander: Okay,

easily be can Code Building National The Freschi:

REGULATIONS OF NEW 4.3 GENERATION New and exciting developments in Gastown with the recycling of older buildings New development, exciting development, new concepts - but Do the regulations need to be changed that is not happening, so it concerns me that some so drastically to allow this standard of downtown revitalization? facets of planning are very positive and others very negative. What we seem to run into are the delays and frustrations of bureaucracy. Probably one of the things we encountered in the construction of this new garage facility, was the Federal requirement for beefing up the loading for the top of the building because of drifting snows. Now, I want you to think about that. This was obviously drawn up in Ottawa, and someone back there figures that snow might drift up against the building and cause the building to collapse--well, needless to say, here in Vancouver we’re not concerned about that. But that is the type of thing... 4.4 FIRE REGULATIONS

Ross: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to say a couple of words about the Fire Department’s role in urban renewal. I think that people should be aware of our role, and our role is not to look at increasing the livability or dealing with the concepts that people may have. We have a role and that is to increase the safety in existing buildings, and we issue orders on that basis. When people are looking at upgrading buildings to today’s standards, that becomes a Building Department matter, as opposed to a Fire Department matter. When they’re looking at aesthetics, looking at the quality of life rather than standard of life, that becomes a matter for the politicians and the Planning Department. When it’s a simple matter of lifesaving in an existing building, the Fire Department issues orders.

I would like to make a comment on the impact of code enforcement. We started a programme of upgrading buildings, unilaterally, in 1973, when we were faced with 40 fire deaths and multi-residential occupancy. People were not only killing themselves, but they were taking other people with them. We decided on an upgrading programme in conjunction with the City, and we enforce that programme. Along with the lowly skid row hotel, which had to be considered, there are also places such as the Vancouver Hotel. We have J subsequently cut our fire deaths from 40 in 1973, to 7 last year. This year we are now getting letters from convention organizers that want to come here, asking if the hotels they are going to stay in are safe. They will not come, unless we reply to them or the hotel

78 t they are are safe, and that they comply Fire control and the upgrading of the with the local Fire Code. The same people, and I look existing hotels will reduce fire—deaths at the Vancouver Hotel which is currently appearing before Council to opt out of spending $3 million, are not running around bragging about it. I think this is how code enforcement can be changed from the cowboy in a white suit and a cowboy in a black suit, to the cowboy with a white hat. I think we’ve made that transition, and when you say that City Hall is helpful about permits and regulations, I certainly hope that the Fire Department is included. Our attitude is, rather than court action, we would prefer to sell people on the viability of doing the things that are needed voluntarily. It is easier to make twenty call—backs, than it is to go to court for one day. A day’s court appearance is about a week of lost time for a man -- we’re better off spending it on salesmanship. U

4.5 SEISMIC UPGRADING FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS

Moir: With so many old buildings, but very desirable buildings, built at the turn of the century, they’re going to be there for another 50 or 100 years. When we have to renovate them we are faced with new regulations on seismic loading. We are also bound by Provincial regulation which says “now, you may do this or, you may not do this” it controls our funding, and iit incouvtr Ufl FRI., JUNE 12, 1981 SIMON FRASER SCHOOL. .. conversion to housing vetoed Co-op housing backers fail in bid for old school By LARRY PYNN inconvenienced because of the con Sun Education Reporter structión during the past year. Vancouver school board will proceed. If the existing structure is converted with plans to demolish Simon Fraser to housing, he also predicted problems elementary school despite a last- with parking and traffic. minute bid by the city’s heritage advi Parent spokesman Lorea Tanner sory committee to convert the old feared it would be impossible to control structure into housing units. the actions of people who lived in the The committee, chaired by Rhonna housing units. Fleming, recommended at the board’s Norm Hutson, an architect and herit planning and building meeting this age committee member, argued that week that the threelevel school, con renovation of the school would help al structed in 1909 at 3185 Manitoba, house leviate the city’s housing problem. 10 co-op units, 10 self owned units, plus He added that family housing units covered parking and play space. would provide the school with a greater student population base during times of While trustees are sympathetic to the declining enrolment. proposal, they consider the structure Weinstein recommended the com inappropriate because it sits only a few mittee meet provincial education off1 feet from the newly completed $1.1 mil cials because they are the ones who ap lion school, prove school building projects. They add that the more than 300 kind Dave Moir head of school board’s fa ergarten to Grade 7 students enrolled cifity services, explained that district at Simon Fraset would be deprived of officials as early as 1974 sought Victo adequate playground area if the old ria’s V permission to renovate but were structure remains. unsuccessful. “It’s a beautiful building, there’s no He said provincial officials generally

doubt about lt,”board chairman Pafl frown on renovating If it costs V more line Weinstein said “We’re for low-cost than 60 per cent of the price of a new housing, but Iñ.this Case I just can’t see building. it. We wouldn’t be doing a service to the Renovations to the existing struc children.” ture, which has about twice the floor Principal Jack Downs pointed out space of the new 3chool. would have that the pupils have already been cost about $800,000. 80 we cannot do what we would like. Consequently, we are not able to renovate some of our older buildings because the cost has gone far beyond the Ministry of Education yardstick, and it is being pushed that way simply because of having to comply with regulations like seismic loading. This even extends to putting a Educationalist platitudes in the Heritage fight. portable, relocatable structure, on a site - it has to The school buildings of the early part o the century are the largest single function that be loaded seismically. Now, we just cannot continue prGvide continuity; they are rapidly being phased out. in that direction. Will the exceptions prove the rule? My question is now —- is it possible to have things re-written so that we don’t have to comply, because those buildings are going to be standing 500 years from now, they just won’t fall down.

Waisman: I have a comment on seismic loading. I had the opportunity of taking an engineering course for a couple of weeks, on seismology, to become licenced in the United States. To cut a long story short, the j course started with a movie showing a building that had been designed with the latest technology in seismic engineering, and right across the Street was one that hadn’t had that expertise included. There was a large earthquake; the one with all the expertise collapsed. What we were told at the beginning of the course is that we really don’t know what we’re doing, we’re groping and we’ve set up rules, and if they work, they work, but they could change in six months. The net result is that we can’t put up an earthquake-proof building. That is the type of issue that becomes black and white. So the final ridiculous line is that you can’t put up a small portable without learning about seismic engineering.

Freschi: Two factors that need to be considered are:

One is that the Department of Education has not heard of life-cycle costing yet -- that is the cost of the building over its life, and that will usually satisfy seismicability, because I don’t want the building to fall on kids either.

The second is that under the existing seismic code, the building that we are renovating is so strong, that if there was an earthquake it would act as a hammer, to knock all the others down

82 J Oberlander: I must say that it has been a [1 tremendously stimulating discussion, I want to thank in your name the three speakers, Bruno, Ann and Harold, who have been marvellous in sharing their experience and their points of view with us. Certainly everybody around this table has been most eloquent, and I am personally very grateful.

;fl I also want to include Knute Buttedahi, our associate, who has been making sure it is all taped, and Ross fl Nelson who set it all up, and without them we could not operate at all.

First of all it has been illustrative of the issues that we face, secondly that perhaps there is something fl in what Michael Turner really said, the opportunity for innovation, and that innovation is as much the r question of lines on paper, the architectural innovations, as innovations of administration, policies, investments, innovations of putting it all together which I think is planning and education. I emphasize F-Iilda Symonds’ point about the necessity of ‘spreading the word’ and increasing our educational experience, of rehabilitation or conversion which I F think is going to b a major factor throughout the whole city, not just downtown. We have so many old buildings, n and by old I mean 20, 30, 40 years old, which are not [J about to go away. fl We are no longer the ‘Kleenex’ society, that we can or ought to dispose easily of things that cost us many millions of dollars. In that sense, perhaps, and I hope we are agreed, it does require a new design profession, in the most innovative sense of the word, certainly a much more innovative administrator, and perhaps also a more courageous investor, because unless we find the combination of the three, the whole recycling process will not work.

83 1] U LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Ms. Janet Bingham Mr. Alan Long Community Arts Council Real Estate Appraiser, Vancouver Vancouver Dr. Ann McAfee Ms. Diana Bodnar City Planning, Vancouver Heritage Committee Mr. Buddy McGrath Community Arts Council CMHC Vancouver Branch Vancouver Dr. Mark Alderman May Brown Jonathan UBC Business Administration City of Vancouver Commerce & Mr. Dave Moir Dr. Knute Buttedahi U Facilities Services Division UBC Centre for Human Settlements Vancouver School Board Dr. Malcolm Crane Murray Social Planning and Review Council Ms. Charlotte Architect, Vancouver Vancouver Mr. Eric Crickmore Ms Nancy Nowlan UBC School of Community and [j City Planning, Vancouver Regional Planning Ms. Barbara Dairymple Dr. H. Peter Oberlander Architect, Vancouver UBC Centre for Human Settlements Ms. Rhorina Fleming Mr. Phil Paulson Heritage Committee City School Board Vancouver Vancouver Jim Alderman Marguerite Ford Mr. Pollock Gastown Townsite Association City of Vancouver Mr. Allen R. Price Freschi Mr. Bruno Architect, Architect, Vancouver Vancouver Mr. Robert Ross Dr. Edward Gibson Chief Fire Prevention Officer Department of Geography J Vancouver Fire Department Simon Fraser University Professor Harold Spence-Sales Grisdale Mr. G. Planning Consultant, Vancouver U Community Affairs Vancouver Board of Trade Ms. Hilda Symonds Executive Co-ordinator Mr. Richard Henriquez City Planning, Vancouver Architect, Vancouver H Mr. Kenneth Terriss Ms. Linda Hossie Architect, Vancouver The ‘Sun’, Vancouver Mr. Gerald Thomson Ed Keate Mr. Building Owners & Managers Association Downtown Association Vancouver Vancouver Stuart Lazear Mr. Professor Michael Turner of Community and UBC School UBC School of Architecture Regional Planning Mr. Allan Waisman Susan Lindell Ms. Architect, Vancouver UBC Department of Geography

84 EEl SIXTZ

EEE] DILEMMAS OF Rodwin, by CANADA’S VANCOUVER: Anthony, HUMAN Trondheim, Chicago. OF 1968—1978, DE Ottawa. W.H.Dawes,

EEJ 1979 NORTH of of Lloyd Technology RESOURCE, TRANSPORTATION, seminar PERVASIVE 1979 by of Fred a EDUCATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL TO PLANNING FOR DYNAMICS SETTLEMENTS, White, COLUMBIA by Agency, Antoniades SCARCE IN OUR RESOURCES D’AFFAIRES A THE University University 1979 RESOURCE, HUMAN University. OF Institute PROCESS, CAN Harry COUNTRIES, Technology Gilbert BRITISH PLANNING PLANNING: Proceedings, by FOR USE of IN APPROPRIATE IN QUARTIER Development LIABILITY RENEWABLE with SETTLEMENTS, Esdaile, 1978 CITY DESIGN 1978. 1978. 1977 Voorhees, LE A AND SETTLEMENT AND DEVELOPED DISTRIBUTION: Seminar ISSUES Polytechnic Proceedings, AS URBAINE, HUMAN continued Alan SETTLEMENTS: POLICIES RESOURCES Robert Institute Massachusetts Colorado - Seminars PARIS, OF ASSET APPROPRIATE SUCCEEDING PRACTICE LESS by of State A with COPE? TO URBAN International WATER AND Seminar STRATEGIC AND Proceedings, Proceedings, Proceedings, Proceedings, Schon, PLANNING LAND: PAPERS SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENTS RESOURCE SETTLEMENT A COMPARAISON ELEMENTS MORE DEFENSE seminar bibliography. IN a FAILING LEARNING POLICY SYSTEM, Donald Massachusetts STRUCTURE Seminar UNCERTAINTY, Seminar URBAN LAND: MANAGING HUMAN University LA Seminar WATER a UNE California HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, MANAGING REMOTENESS: THE Canadian Norway. Seminar ARABLE

EEl 9. 8. 7. 6. 3. 1. 4 5. 2. 13. 14. 12. 11. l). OCCASIONAL

EEl -j OF with or ISSUES SERVICES ANY Spence— Architect, Latin AND Freschi, NATURE MAKE London, PLANNING, seminar MARKET’ of Architectural a IT of Harold THE Weissmann, Calgary. THE Bruno SETTLEMENT with Seidler, ‘FREE STREETS IN Implications of and DOES Columbia Cities lW5 University. Anthony, with IN Current $15.95 ACTION, Montreal. Ernest HUMAN UNDER:

EEl SETTLEMENTS: Harry the Policy, Settlements V6T Gertler, 8 of seminar ON and DEVELOPMENT: University each AND each by to Planner with British a DOWN TRENDS: GROWTH Len seminar BUILDINGS, Policy, AND University ECONOMIES: of Human B.C.

EEl Only a Montreal Mall by Antoniades OF NEIGHBOURHOODS: SQUATTER Polytechnic $4.95 $4.95 TRANSFORMATIONS for Strategy Land Settlement GROWTH McAfee, seminar AVAILABLE Waterloo. OF @ OLD DISCOURSE University East @ BUILDING Reference Lichfield, Cover CORE, a LAND, Australia, Harry AND of State for PLANNING RE-USE Ortega, Ann PLANNED’ Robinson, in AND by URBAN FROM METROPOLITAN 2206 Centre University ECOLOGICALLY, Vancouver, AND Australia. Hard M. URBAN AND Consultant. National PAPERS Jacobs, SERIES Special in Settlement CHALLENGE a LIFE Alvaro Nathaniel Ira THE Strategy from: PUBLICATIONS HABITAT University PLANNING New Practice Sidney, California THE SETTLEMENT America, A With by England. for by CANADIAN ‘CENTRALLY NEW DESIGN AT Architect, Sales, TRANSITIONS ENVIRONMENTAL Mr. PLANNING Peter DIFFERENCE? Yugoslavia. BUILDING OTHER Order 2. 1. MONOGRAPH 3. 18. 17. 16. 4. 15. 5. Available OCCASIONAL Li

This project was partially funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but the views expressed are the personal views of the authors and no responsibility for them should be attributed to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Additional copies of this Occasional Paper are available at $4.95 each from:

Centre for Human Settlements, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5

Please make cheques or money orders payable to: “The University of British Columbia”

Excerpts and reproduction of this Occasional Paper is permitted provided credit is given to the authors and the UBC Centre for Human Settlements. Li