UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Vancouver’s residential design guideline process : a case study Bernstein, Richard Charles 1980

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1980_A8 B38.pdf [ 10.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094678.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094678-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094678-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094678-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094678-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094678-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094678-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094678-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094678.ris

Full Text

VANCOUVER'S RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINE PROCESS A CASE STUDY by RICHARD CHARLES BERNSTEIN B.A. University of Manitoba, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July, 1980 Richard Charles Bernstein, 1980 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. • • , School of Community § Regional Planning Department of The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date September 30, 1980 t II BERNSTEIN, RICHARD CHARLES (M.A. Community and Regional Planning) VANCOUVER'S RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES PROCESS: A CASE STUDY This study examines the application of design guidelines within the City of Vancouver's Development Permit Approval process. The guidelines are a phenomenon of the '70's, having emerged because of a f a i l u r e of many projects to meet various user needs and expectations concerning r e s i d e n t i a l l i f e s t y l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y in higher density projects. The Planning Department of the City of Vancouver has embraced the use of design guide-li n e s as a means to provide architects and developers with dir e c t i o n and encouragement for producing designs which w i l l meet user needs and make positi v e contributions to surrounding neighbourhoods. It was hypothesized that although the majority of design guidelines are intended to be generative, their use for evalua-tive purposes in terms of the planning departments review of projects has created an impression amongst members of the above mentioned professions that the guidelines are being applied in a regulatory manner. It was further hypothesized that the current discretionary zoning system may in practice be as i n f l e x i b l e as the highly regulatory t r a d i t i o n a l zoning system i t was intended to replace. The hypotheses were tested through a case study of the use of design guidelines in Vancouver's Development Approval process. I l l A verbal and graphic comparative analysis between t r a d i t i o n a l and discretionary zoning systems was made. In addition these two development control procedures were examined in r e l a t i o n to the relevant l i t e r a t u r e concerning administrative discretionary authority. The hypotheses were further tested through personal interviews with several architects in private practice and members of the City of Vancouver's Planning Department. The study revealed that by and large, the majority of a r c h i -tects did not f e e l that the design guidelines were used in a regulatory manner. In this sense the hypothesis was disproved. Nevertheless, i t i s essential to note that several architects pointed to isolated cases whereby the guidelines were applied in a regulatory fashion. The problem; lay not so much with the guide-li n e s themselves, but rather with their application by what was perceived as incompetent, i n f l e x i b l e administrators. In this regard the f i r s t hypothesis was given minor support. The second hypothesis was disproved through a l l of the research methods mentioned above. Again, however, isolated examples of i n f l e x i b l e attitudes on the part of poorly trained administrators were c i t e d by some architects as being detrimental to the f l e x i b i l i t y of the discretionary zoning system. The study showed that the continued use of both design guidelines and the discretionary zoning system was supported by the representative sampling of architects and planners. This abstract i s approved as to form and content. Faculty Member In Charge of Thesis IV TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 Hypothesis I 3 Hypothes is I I 4 Research Design 4 Thes is O r g a n i z a t i o n 5 Scope of the Study 7 Summary 8 I I . H i s t o r i c a l Precedents 10 I n t r o d u c t i o n 10 Man-Environment S t u d i e s 10 Hea l th and S a f e t y Standards 11 A e s t h e t i c Regu la t ions 12 The Need ,for G u i d e l i n e s 15 Summary 17 I I I . Design G u i d e l i n e C a t e g o r i e s and Contents 19 I n t r o d u c t i o n 19 The Generat i ve Type 19 P a t t e r n Language 21 The Regulatory Type 22 The E v a l u a t i v e Type 23 B e h a v i o u r a l User Needs 25 Aesthet i c/Urban Design P r i n c i p l e s 33 Summary 34 IV. P r i v a t e Development Sector G u i d e l i n e s 38 I n t r o d u c t i o n 38 R a t i o n a l e fo r Use 38 G u i d e l i n e Concerns 40 The Approva l Process 43 Summary 46 V. Case Study 49 I n t r o d u c t i o n 49 O b j e c t i v e s 49 O r g a n i z a t i o n 50 Zoning Systems i n Vancouver 51 T r a d i t i o n a l Zoning 51 D i s c r e t i o n a r y Zoning 53 Graphic Comparison 61 The Development Permit Approva l Process 68 D i s c r e t i o n a r y A u t h o r i t y A n a l y s i s 77 Summary 84 V I . P e r s o n a l In te rv iews 88 I n t r o d u c t i o n 88 Responses 89 Summary of In te rv iew Responses 109 Conc lus ions 112 V VII. Evaluations and Conclusions 116 Introduction 116 Findings 116 Evaluation of the Hypotheses 118 Case Study Comments and Conclusions 123 An Evaluation of Design Guidelines in P r i n c i p l e 125 Relevance of the Study to Urban Planning 126 Recommendations for Further Research 127 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 2 9 Appendix I - Guidelines for Multi-Family 132 Housing Appendix II - A Qualitative Checklist for 133 Compact Housing Appendix III - K i t s i l a n o Design Guidelines 134 Appendix IV - C.M.H.C. Site Planning 135 Handbook Appendix V - Developer Interview Responses 136 Appendix VI - RM-3 D i s t r i c t Schedule 143 Appendix VII - Zoning & Development By-Law 144 Excerpts VI LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Area S p e c i f i c Design Guidelines 56 I Continued 57 II General Design Guidelines 59 II Continued 60 VII LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Development Approval Process Related to 45 Design Guidelines (Between Builder and Land Development Company) 2 T r a d i t i o n a l Zoning - K i t s i l a n o 62 3 Discretionary Zoning - K i t s i l a n o 63 4 T r a d i t i o n a l Zoning - West End 64 5 Discretionary Zoning - West End 65 6 T r a d i t i o n a l Zoning - Fairview Slopes 66 7 Discretionary Zoning - Fairview Slopes 67 8 Development Permit Group - City of Vancouver 70 y.i 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As the author of this work, I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to my thesis advisors Ann McAfee and Brahm Wiesman for their thoughtful insights, c r i t i -cism, and encouragement throughout the course of the study. Special thanks i s given to Ken King of the City of Vancouver Planning Department for his helpful comments, draft reviews and o v e r a l l assistance. Most of a l l , I wish to thank my wife, C i t a , for providing much-needed patience and support. 1 CHAPTER I The Problem The emergence in the 70's of design guidelines for housing was a response to a s i t u a t i o n in which various user needs, values, and expectations concerning r e s i d e n t i a l l i f e s t y l e p a r t i c u l a r i l y in medium and higher density accomodation were not being properly s a t i s f i e d . Design guidelines i d e n t i f y what those important user concerns are and then suggest possible design solutions and b u i l t form arrangements which w i l l contribute to the creation of a comfortable housing environment. In most cases the guidelines consist of interpretive statements based on research studies of the needs of similar groups to the one expected to inhabit the architect's and developer's pa r t i c u l a r project. Oscar Newman states that; Design guidelines are statements about the organi-zation and positioning of a c t i v i t y areas and their linkage with one another. Guidelines are intended to provide an indication of the generic rather than the s p e c i f i c physical form appropriate to the needs of d i f f e r e n t human a c t i v i t i e s . Primarily, design guide-li n e s form programmatic objectives for architects and planners to follow in developing their designs for building and developments. They are also intended as a means for c l e a r l y ranking al t e r n a t i v e s . They may be used as a comparative model, providing evalu-ative c r i t e r i a for assessing the quality of d i f f e r e n t proposals in meeting the programmatic needs of d i f -ferent c l i e n t groups. "A guideline must take a positive form, of what to do in a s i t u -ation to avoid a problem. This advice must be stated in a way that w i l l suggest a solution to the problem faced on s i t e . A guideline i s a suggestion - a push in the right d i r e c t i o n . The guideline must therefore be generative - i t must help generate a unique solution. -2-Design guidelines have also emerged to provide greater o v e r a l l coordination in developing projects which relate well to their immediate neighbourhoods. Very often planners have concentrated their interest on issues of land use, density, transportation, s o c i a l policy and housing while architects have not looked beyond the boundaries of a project s i t e . As a r e s u l t , the design of neighbourhoods has been rather haphazard and in many cases v i s u a l l y and functionally displeasing. The design guidelines are in essence a product of a renewed interest in urban design which began in the s i x t i e s . While much thought, discussion and documented research has formed the foundation for the content of design guidelines for housing, the methods by which those same guidelines are used have not received an equal amount of attention. To date there have been few attempts to recognize the various forms of guide-li n e s and the process by which they are applied so as to c l a r i f y their proper intent and use. This state of a f f a i r s stems in part from the fact that the whole subject of design guidelines is an emerging f i e l d and one which has had l i t t l e analysis from a process point of view. Because the process of using guidelines remains unclear, and i s complicated by each additional set of guidelines that i s introduced to the housing scene, there i s substantial confusion and misunderstanding amongst arch i t e c t s , developers and planners. This problem i s espe c i a l l y acute in the Lower Mainland area of B r i t i s h Columbia which has recently experienced a p r o l i f e r a t i o n of design guidelines for housing that have been produced primarily by municipal planning depart-ments but also by p r o v i n c i a l and federal agencies. -3-It i s true that the inherent subjective and interpretive nature of many of the guidelines to a large extent dictates a process that i s s i m i l a r i l y subjective and in t e r p r e t i v e . However, the confusion that surrounds the process has undoubtedly under-mined the c r e d i b i l i t y of the guidelines themselves. As a result a prevailing attitude amongst many architects and developers in the Lower Mainland i s that most of the guidelines are per-ceived to be highly regulatory in nature and serve to i n h i b i t design rather than stimulate innovative a l t e r n a t i v e s . Hypothesis Providing opportunities to develop design and planning solu-tions for housing projects that w i l l meet a variety of user needs and make a positive contribution to their surrounding neighbour-hood i s the rationale behind municipal, p r o v i n c i a l and federal government sponsorship and publication of design guidelines. How-ever, the guidelines also provide various evaluative c r i t e r i a which allow planning departments to assess the o v e r a l l quality of various housing proposals. I t i s hypothesized that although the majority of design guidelines are intended to be generative, their use for evaluative purposes in terms of the planning depart-ments review of projects has created an impression amongst several participants involved in the housing design process, noteably architects and developers, that the guidelines are being applied in a regulatory manner. The discretionary zoning system and i t s accompanying guide-l i n e s were i n s t i t u t e d in part to correct the undesirable housing . conditions created by the excessively regulatory t r a d i t i o n a l zoning system. In addition i t was f e l t by both public and private parties that with the greater f l e x i b i l i t y supposedly -4-b u i l t into the discretionary approach, more creative and higher quality solutions to various housing problems could be achieved. It i s further hypothesized that this rationale may in fact be in error. This i s to say that discretionary zoning may not be r e a l i z i n g i t s intention and i s not perceived, e s p e c i a l l y by developers and a r c h i t e c t s , to be any more f l e x i b l e than t r a d i -t i o n a l zoning. These hypotheses w i l l be tested through a case study of the use of design guidelines within the C i t y of Vancouver's Develop-ment Permit Review Process. A comparison i s made between two forms of development control - the t r a d i t i o n a l zoning system which pre-ceeded the introduction of design guidelines and the d i s c r e t i o n -ary zoning system which f a c i l i t a t e s application of design guidelines in the development approval process. In addition these development control procedures are also discussed in r e l a t i o n to the relevant l i t e r a t u r e concerning administrative discretionary authority. The hypotheses are further tested through personal i n t e r -views with several architects in private practice in Vancouver and members of the C i t y of Vancouver's Planning Department. The architects chosen for the interviews f e l l into the following three categories: 1. Architects who had had developments rejected by the Vancouver Planning Department in the l a s t 12 months for f a i l u r e to meet the intent and s p i r i t of design guidelines. 2. Architects who have had substantial involvement in the research and development of design guide-l i n e s . 3. Architects who are currently very active in the design of housing in the West End area of Vancouver. .-5-A l l of the architects interviewed have had extensive involvement in housing design in the C i t y of Vancouver and several were in attendance at a workshop on design guidelines held at The C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department in the Summer of 1977. The planners who were interviewed are employed by the Vancouver Planning Department and are a c t i v e l y involved in the review of housing designs under the Development Permit Approval Process. Each respondent was asked a series of questions which re-quired them to evaluate design guidelines in p r i n c i p l e , the affects of guidelines on design freedom and the b u i l t environment and to respond to a number of inq u i r i e s on the use of guidelines within the City of Vancouver's Development Permit Approval Process. These questions are outlined along with the responses in Chapter VI. Organization This introductory chapter has explained the purpose of design guidelines and the rationale for their development. The hypothesis and research methodology for t h i s study were also b r i e f l y outlined. Chapter II discusses the development of design guidelines in terms of their h i s t o r i c a l precedents. These include man-environment studies, health and safety standards and aesthetic theories and regulations. Chapter III examines the intended use of design guide-l i n e s in the housing design process. The guidelines are separated into three categories (generative, regulatory and evaluative) based on their format and the process by which they are used. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the types of user needs and aesthetic/urban design considerations -6-common to a l l the guidelines as well as the methods by which the guidelines try to s a t i s f y these concerns. Chapter IV describes in d e t a i l the design guidelines for housing that have been produced by the private development sec-tor. The content of these p a r t i c u l a r design guidelines i s examined as i s the process by which they are u t i l i z e d . Com-parisons between the private market and government guidelines are made wherever they serve to point out s i g n i f i c a n t s i m i l a r i -t i e s and differences. Chapter V presents an examination of design guidelines through a case study of the City of Vancouver's Development Permit Approval Process. In addition to a discussion of this process, this chapter provides a comparative analysis of two development control systems - t r a d i t i o n a l vs. discretionary zoning. F i n a l l y the chapter concludes with a discussion of the two systems in l i g h t of the l i t e r a t u r e on administrative d i s -cretion. Chapter VI presents the findings obtained through personal interviews with several architects and planners who have had extensive involvement in the housing development process. The architects and planners were separated into four categories pre-viously described and asked a series of questions in three gen-er a l areas (also described e a r l i e r ) . A l l of the responses are presented as well as some observations and conclusions. Chapter VII presents an evaluation of the hypotheses in terms of a l l the relevant information c o l l e c t e d . In addition the concept of design guidelines in p r i n c i p l e i s evaluated in terms of the findings of this study and some recommendations are made for their future use. . F i n a l l y , the importance of the study to - 7 -the practice of community and regional planning i s discussed and some recommendations for further research are outlined. Scope of the Study The study i s limited to an analysis of design guidelines that apply to housing whether i t i s the single-family, medium density (townhouses, low-rise apartments) or high density, mul-t i p l e story form. Design guidelines directed towards i n s t i t u -t i o n a l , commercial or h i s t o r i c a l buildings and areas w i l l not be discussed. It i s the process by which design guidelines are u t i l i z e d that i s the main concern of this study. It i s not the intention of the author to present an in depth evaluation of any p a r t i c u l a r p r i n c i p l e or p r i n c i p l e s contained in any of the design guidelines. The process i s examined primarily in terms of the roles played by arc h i t e c t s , and c i t y planners. The developers role i s limited to a discussion of the development of their own design guidelines as well as their attitudes to various government guidelines. It was recognized early on in this study that i t i s the ar c h i t e c t representing the developer who has the most f a m i l i a r i t y with the City of Vancouver's design guideline pro-cess as i t relates to the schematic design development of a given project. The input of users and various user involvement techniques i s s i g n i f i c a n t and i s c e r t a i n l y worthy of further study. However, the scope of this thesis does not allow for a detailed analysis of this topic. The nature of the study i s of course defined by the methods used to gather data and information. These include a series of personal interviews, a verbal and graphic comparison of the t r a d i -t i o n a l and discretionary zoning systems and an examination of -8-the l e g a l l i t e r a t u r e on administrative d i s c r e t i o n . In order to maintain c o n f i d e n t i a l l i t y , a l l opinions, answers, etc., regard-ing the use of design guidelines within the City of Vancouver's Development Permit Approval Process resulting from the method of inquiry were disassociated from a l l personal i d e n t i t i e s . Summary Design Guidelines are a phenomenon of the 70's having emer-ged because of a f a i l u r e of many housing projects to meet various user needs, values and expectations concerning r e s i d e n t i a l l i f e -s t y l e . Furthermore the guidelines have also been developed to provide arc h i t e c t s , developers and planners with some di r e c t i o n for designs which w i l l make a posit i v e contribution to the sur-rounding neighbourhood. The process by which design guidelines are applied i s charac-terized by confusion and a lack of d i r e c t i o n . I t i s hypothesized that although the majority of design guidelines are intended to be generative, their use for evaluative purposes in terms of the planning departments review of projects has created an impression amongst certain parties involved in the housing design process, noteably architects and developers, that the guidelines are being applied in a regulatory manner. It has been further hypothesized that the current discretionary zoning system may in practice be as i n f l e x i b l e as the highly regulatory t r a d i t i o n a l zoning system i t was intended to replace. These hypotheses w i l l be tested through a case study of the use of design guidelines within the Cit y of Vancouver's Development Permit Review Process. -9-CHAPTER I  Footnotes 1. Newman, Oscar, Design Guidelines For Creating Defensible  Space. (National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Washington 1976), p.7 2. Walkey/Olson Architects, "Privacy in Compact Housing", summary report in A Qualitative Checklist For Compact Housing. Ted Wrinkle & Associates (ed.) (Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Department. Vancouver, February, 1975), p.49 -10-CHAPTER II  Introduction In order to more f u l l y understand the design guideline con-cept i t i s useful to review the h i s t o r i c a l precedents which led to their development. Three h i s t o r i c a l themes can be i d e n t i f i e d as preludes to the current design guidelines. They are a) ..research and experiments into man-environment relationships, b) the develop-ment of health and safety standards for housing and c) the aesthetic theories, experiments and regulations for housing. It can be shown, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the case of the l a t t e r two themes, that while these i n i t i a l attempts to improve and guide the develop-ment of housing were c e r t a i n l y desirable and welcomed, they were both i n s u f f i c i e n t and often s u p e r f i c i a l , creating a void which the current design guidelines had to f i l l . Man-Environment Studies Man-Environment studies which are often referred to as the human ecology movement provide many of the research methodologies that are at the foundation of design guidelines. Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines ecology as follows: 1. A branch of science concerned with the i n t e r - r e l a -tionship of organisms and their environment. 2. The t o t a l i t y or patterns of relations between or-ganisms and their environment. The d e f i n i t i o n of human ecology i s "A branch of sociology that studies the relationship between a human community and i t s en-vironments . " 1 Man-environment studies have emerged from France, the United States and B r i t a i n . In the early part of the twentieth century researchers such as Vidal de l a Blache (France), Robert Park (United States) and S i r Patrick Geddes (Britain) carried out -11-empirical studies of the relationship between man and his r u r a l and urban environments. One p a r t i c u l a r methodology used in these studies was an inductive approach u t i l i z i n g fieldwork in which the observer discovers the meaning of a place by being immersed in i t . Another contributor to the human ecology movement was Ebenezer Howard, an inventive English court stenographer. Howard's contribution was the Garden C i t y , a town plan concept based on a physical and l i f e s t y l e urban-rural synthesis. Howard f e l t that the integration of urban and r u r a l patterns would v i t a l i z e urban l i v i n g by providing nearby open green space and at the same time would f a c i l i t a t e an i n t e l l e c t u a l and s o c i a l improvement of r u r a l l i f e because of the proximity to the c i t y center.^ The studies of the founders of the human ecology movement i d e n t i f i e d a number of p r i n c i p l e s concerning man-environment relationships from which various design guideline recommendations have been derived. Furthermore the research methodologies employed by the human ecologists are the forerunners of studies carried out in the s i x t i e s which dealt with topics such as high density effects on human behaviour, suburban and new town l i f e -s t y l e , the s o c i a l aspects of architecture, privacy and personal space and user s a t i s f a c t i o n in multiple housing design. Instru-mental in these studies were people such as Herbert Gans, Jane Jacobs, William Michelson, Christopher Alexander, C l a i r e Cooper and Carl Norcross. It i s this body of research which provides the v a l i d i t y for several design guideline concepts. Health and Safety Standards The development of health and safety standards for housing began at the turn of the century when the urban s o c i a l reform -12-movement in the United States and Canada t r i e d to achieve better housing conditions for the working class in the i n d u s t r i a l c i t i e s of North America. The movement was i n i t i a t e d and supported not as might be expected by r a d i c a l or labour elements but rather by the business and professional e l i t e of the period. C a p i t a l i s t -philanthropists such as Pullman, Carnegie, Mellon and Kellogg were some of the driving forces behind the attempts at housing reform. One writer has explained their motives in terms of greed and economics: Housing and public health were business propositions. Each death from typhoid had a deterrent influence upon the sales of every merchant. Manufacturers would refuse to locate in certain c i t i e s because of housing conditions. Substandard housing, faulty water and sew-erage f a c i l i t i e s and a i r p o l l u t i o n were a l l a species of i n d i r e c t taxation upon business inter e s t s , not only as tax-payers but in their e f f e c t upon output. Physicians, sanitarians and s o c i a l workers agreed that the influence of the worker's home environment extended to the factory, reducing the e f f i c i e n c y of the labor force.^ Municipal departments of health and sanitation were set up in every c i t y in North America to i n i t i a t e improvements in housing conditions. These departments began to issue regulations, stan-dards and codes which dealt with a i r and l i g h t requirements, f i r e protection, sewage services and the occupancy of buildings. In addition, the laws of nuisance, r e s t r i c t i v e covenants, easements, building setbacks and zoning by-laws were further devices created for regulating health and safety standards. "The need for bureau-c r a t i c r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n to achieve housing reform was c r u c i a l enough to e f f e c t i v e l y suppress the t r a d i t i o n a l business creed that idealized entrepreneurial autonomy and favoured private rather than public decision making.'"* Aesthetic Regulations Following the enactment of health standards and by laws -13-regulations which concerned the aesthetics of housing were developed. The a r c h i t e c t u r a l control ordinance had been used by many communities to regulate the appearance of their r e s i d e n t i a l areas. In 1938, The Planners Journal defined this form of con-t r o l to mean "regulation of the appearance of private as well as public buildings and structures at a l l stages of design, con-struction, maintenance, demolition, and replacement in accord with a preconceived and f l e x i b l e three dimensional c i v i c pattern based on comprehensive c i t y planning and zoning, in which a l l exteriors are harmonized as to materials, colors, s t y l e s , tex-tures, silhouettes, and scales with the general scheme of c i v i c design." 5 Thus the objective of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l ordinance i s to ensure that buildings are not either excessively uniform or d i s -s i l i l a r and that the scale design, and exterior appearances are of high q u a l i t y . This type of ordinance i s usually administered through the o f f i c e of the municipal building inspector or through a special provision in the l o c a l zoning by-laws which gives the municipality the legal power to create an Ar c h i t e c t u r a l Board of Review. Vancouver's Urban Design Panel i s an example of such a board. The duties, powers, terms of reference, etc. of each board may vary to some degree and are normally outlined in a special section of the various municipal ordinances. Two other forms of aesthetic control in r e s i d e n t i a l areas are the "look-alike" and "no look-alike" regulations. Several municipal zoning by-laws contain s p e c i f i c regulations which a r b i t r a r i l y control the external appearance of newly constructed or remodeled r e s i d e n t i a l buildings. The "look-alike" regulation i s intended to maintain a degree of a r c h i t e c t u r a l consistency in -14-r e s i d e n t i a l design for a given neighbourhood. It i s often applied in affl u e n t r e s i d e n t i a l areas where a special house st y l e i s indigenous or favoured ( i . e . C a l i f o r n i a Ranch, Georgian, West Coast Cedar, e t c . ) . The "no look-alike" regulations are the result of public reaction to the monotonous rows of i d e n t i c a l houses which had begun to characterize the North American sub-d i v i s i o n since the Second World War. This ordinance requires that the builder must produce variations in the design and exter-nal appearance of his houses within a given development. For example no two houses in a succession of perhaps f i v e would be permitted to look-alike, nor l i k e any on the opposity side of the street.6 The look-alike and no look-alike regulations have been adopted by several private developers in the Vancouver area in the preparation of their design guidelines directed at builders of single-family and z e r o - l o t - l i n e projects. Lane use contracts between a municipality and a private developer are another means of ensuring the aesthetic quality of r e s i d e n t i a l areas. The contract t y p i c a l l y l i s t s a r c h i t e c t u r a l controls in the form of scale and type of housing, building materials, setbacks, landscaping and some p r i n c i p l e s of the "look-alike) regulations to which the developer i s bound. Special zoning ordinances have been applied to certain r e s i d e n t i a l areas containing concentrations of a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y or h i s t o r i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t structures. A r c h i t e c t u r a l and h i s t o r i c preservation has been j u s t i f i e d on the basis of i t s aesthetic contribution to the c i t y including such factors as preserving the nations c u l t u r a l heritage, the need for variety and diver-s i t y in the c i t y and the economic benefits of increased t o u r i s t revenue. Housing which i s located within a special amenity area -15-may also be protected by a zoning ordinance or other s p e c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n . The laws protecting r e s i d e n t i a l areas of architec-t u r a l , h i s t o r i c a l or amenity significance usually state that the houses cannot be torn down or altered without special permission. In addition encroachment on the existing housing by new residen-t i a l construction which i s inconsistent in terms of scale and style i s prohibited. Controls over billboards and other types of signs in r e s i d e n t i a l areas are another common aesthetic regulation. Sign controls are actually amongst the f i r s t at-tempts to regulate land use based on aesthetic p r i n c i p l e s . ? The previous sections have attempted to show how Man-Environ-ment studies l a i d the research foundation for design guidelines. While health and aesthetic standards contributed improvements they were not panaceas. With the increased construction of multiple-housing projects in the 60's and 70's i t became apparent' to many planners, architects and environmental psychologists that resident needs for privacy, t e r r i t o r i a l i t y and sense of i d e n t i t y were being neglected. This state of a f f a i r s resulted in many cases from t o t a l l y inadequate public and private housing schemes that were created by narrow minded bureaucrats, insen-s i t i v e or status seeking architects and greedy developers. For example in 1957 a senior government o f f i c i a l and member of the Board of Directors of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation wrote the President of the Corporation: "I f e e l that the con-struction of any p a r t i c u l a r public housing project should be based on economic and urban development consideration primarily and that the needs of i n d i v i d u a l tenants should be secondary... It seems to me that public housing projects should also be at a minimum standard as far as accomodation i s concerned. In other -16-words they should improve the community but only provide a bare minimum of housing for the occupants. S i m i l a r i l y in 1962, an internal paper c i r c u l a t i n g through CMHC stated; "It i s not suggested that a residual character for new public housing may be found in building into i t a s t r u c t u r a l obsolescence. There may be, however, merit in creating some measure of functional and s o c i a l obsolescence; i . e . to incorporate in the concept of public housing design a number of t r a i t s making i t less s o c i a l l y desirable." The Corporation memo suggested several ways of making a project less desirable including higher densities, l i m i t a -tions on number of bedrooms for families as well as room sizes, no f r i l l s appliances, unfinished cement p a r t i t i o n s , unfashionable windows, uniform colours, inconvenient relationships of units to parking and garbage areas and less valuable s i t e s for the projects. Architect Robert Goodman states that the p r e v a i l i n g attitude towards public housing in the United States was that i t was low cost housing and therefore required a multitude of government design guideline regulations to make sure the project building looked that way. "After a l l reasoned the real-estate int e r e s t s , i f the poor were l i v i n g in better conditions than those who were supposed to be better o f f , what would happen to poor peoples i n -centive to work hard so they could " l i v e b e t t e r . A s for the a r c h i t e c t u r a l profession, Goodman reasoned; "With architects rewards determined by whether or not their work appears in v i s u a l media such as books, magazines and museums, there i s a stronger incentive for them to focus on v i s u a l aspects of building design then, for example, to consider how comfortable the buildings are for those people who use them....Architecture becomes a look at experience rather than a " l i v e i n " one. In giving each other -17-prizes for each others buildings we don't bother to ask the occupants of the buildings being considered." 1^ Summary The research origins of design guidelines can be found i n several man-environment studies p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the work of Vidal de l a Blache, Robert Park, S i r Patrick Geddes, Ebenezer Howard and more recent e f f o r t s by people such as Herbert Cans, Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander and C l a i r e Cooper. H i s t o r i c a l precedents such as health and safety standards and aesthetic theories and regulations did much to improve housing conditions but were hardly panaceas since they did not address several concerns for l i v e a b i l i t y such as privacy, i d e n t i t y and t e r r i t o r i a l i t y . Furthermore they did not deal very extensively with how buildings should relate to each other i n an urban design sense. Thus the introduction of design guidelines i s intended to f i l l these gaps. CHAPTER II Footnotes 1. Gove, P h i l i p , Babcock (ed), Webster's Third New International  Dictionary (G. and C. Merriam Co., S p r i n g f i e l d , Mass., 1961), p. 720 2. Howard, Ebenezer, Garden C i t i e s of Tomorrow. (Faber & Faber Ltd., London, 1902), p. 52 - 53 3. Lubove, Roy, Twentieth Century Pittsburgh (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1969), p. 31 4. Ibid., p. 31 - 32 5. Brainerd, Harold B., "A B r i e f for A r c h i t e c t u r a l Control" in the Planners Journal, (Vol. 4, no. 2, 1938), p.40 6. Vanin, Daniel "Legislating for Urban Aesthetics" (Unpublished Masters Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1972), p. 50 7. Ibid., p. 50 - 51 8. Dennis, Michael, Fish, Susan, Programs in Search of a Policy: Low Income Housing in Canada (Hakkert Publisher's, Toronto, 1972) , p. 174-5 9. Goodman, Robert, After the Planners, (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1971), p. 61 10. Ibid., p. 116, 120 -19-CHAPTER III An i n i t i a l step towards c l a r i f y i n g the intent of design guidelines for housing i s to recognize that i t i s possible to id e n t i f y three d i f f e r e n t categories which define the themes and proposed use of the various guidelines. For the purposes of t h i s study design guidelines w i l l be separated into categories which are either generative, regulatory or evaluative. Indeed, much of the confusion surrounding the use of design guidelines results in part from a f a i l u r e to recognize these d i s -t i n c t i o n s both in the preparation and application of the guidelines. Currently there are several guidelines which are composites of two or three d i f f e r e n t forms. Consequently, a design guideline may be used in a d i f f e r e n t manner, from that for which i t was intended. The Generative Type The generative design guideline functions as a methodological tool for the designer to a s s i s t in generating a design for a par-t i c u l a r project. It seeks to i d e n t i f y incongruences between a physical environment and human behaviour and then proposes design and planning recommendations which i f followed, w i l l help improve the relationships between the two elements. While genera-tive guidelines specify recommendations to various problem s i t -uations, they are nevertheless s u f f i c i e n t l y general and abstract to allow the designer to produce creative solutions and to adapt the intent of the guidelines to his s i t e and unique set of c i r -cumstances. The basis for many of the generative guidelines i s Christo-pher Alexander's Pattern Language. I t evolved from an attempt to r a t i o n a l i z e design. It i s the creation of Alexander and his team of associates at the Center for Environmental Structures, -20-Berkely, C a l i f o r n i a and i t represents a rather bold extension of his 1964 publication of Notes on the Synthesis of Form. The Patterns The American Heritage Dictionary l i s t s one meaning of pat-tern as, "A plan, diagram, or model to be followed in making things."-'- This meaning i s e s s e n t i a l l y at the root of patterns as Alexander defines them. The pattern i s "any general planning p r i n c i p l e , which states a clear problem that may occur repeatedly in the environment, states the range of contexts in which this problem w i l l occur and gives the general features required by a l l buildings or plans which solve t h i s problem. In th i s sense we may regard a pattern as an empirically grounded imperative which outlines the preconditions for healthy i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i a l l i f e in a community."2 The individual pattern consists of the following parts: If Statement Each pattern begins with a context or " i f " statement that defines p r e c i s e l y the situ a t i o n where the pattern applies. Problem Section Supplies supportive empiri-c a l information for the pat-tern, evidence for i t s v a l i -d i t y and the range of d i f -ferent ways the pattern can be manifested in a building. This i s the longest section of the pattern. -21-Then Statement Defines one or more s p a t i a l relationships necessary to solve the problem present under the " i f " conditions. Pattern Language Relationship Ties the pattern to a l l the smaller patterns in the lan-guage which are needed to complete the pattern and f i l l i t out. 3 Unlike planning and performance standards incorporated in design guidelines of the most highly regulatory forms, the pat-terns provide images which are used to generate design rather than l i m i t or i n h i b i t i t . Montgomery states that the pattern " i s a physical configuration, a s p a t i a l l y defined image not a verbal or quantitative performance standard; and i t usually re-quires both verbal and graphic indications to define i t . " - ' The Pattern Language The environmental pattern language i s a system which co-ordinates the patterns with one another. It makes certain that the solutions to various projects are properly related. "The language has evolved for no pattern can be seen as an isolated e n t i t y . Each pattern can ex i s t in the world only to the extent that i t i s supported by other patterns: The larger patterns in which i t i s embedded, the patterns of the same size that surround i t , and the smaller patterns which are embedded in i t . " 6 In the design process, pattern language may be used in three d i f f e r e n t fashions. One approach i s when a designer uses a pattern language to create his or her own space. A second -22-approach i s when a designer and a small group of individuals (say 8-20) make c o l l e c t i v e decisions about parts of their en-vironment and then create a space. F i n a l l y , the thi r d method in which pattern language i s used i s when the designer creates a space or form for an anonymous c l i e n t . The designer i s es-s e n t i a l l y acting as a surrogate for those people who have not yet been i d e n t i f i e d . While most generative -types of design guidelines that are currently used in the Vancouver area r e f l e c t the pattern language concepts to some degree they vary considerably in the extent to which they adhere to Alexander's pattern format. Some of the guidelines contain the " i f " and "then" statements i d e n t i f y i n g a par t i c u l a r context in which a problem occurs and some possible solutions but may neglect to include a "problem section" elaborating on the " m i s f i t " by of f e r i n g supportive empirical research. (see appendix I) Others in ch e c k l i s t format provide questions which enquire whether a p a r t i c u l a r " i f " set of conditions exist and then proceed to recommend design solutions. (see appendix II) S t i l l other types of guidelines state design suggestions and p r i n c i p l e s that seek to avoid the occurrence of problems that are alluded but not necessarily spelled out. (see appendix III) Almost a l l guidelines of the generative form con-tain both verbal and graphic descriptions of desirable and some-times undesirable b u i l t form - human a c t i v i t y relationships which are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the pattern language format. The Regulatory Type While guidelines are rarely mutually exclusive in form there are nevertheless a few that can be isolated as quite regulatory in nature. In guidelines of this type there are few -23-explanations of how rules and recommendations were arrived at. In addition many of the concepts and p r i n c i p l e s seem to be based on rather a r b i t r a r y theories of design. These design guidelines are frequently c r i t i c i z e d by developers, architects and planners for their excessively r i g i d space and building form requirements and for their s t i f l i n g e f f e c t on the c r e a t i v i t y of the designer, resulting in rather mundane standardized projects. For example the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's Site Planning Handbook states under "Yard dimensions for the outdoor l i v i n g area - horizontal multiple housing: An outdoor l i v i n g area which i s adjacent to a l i v i n g room window or any alterna-tive room l i s t e d in paragraph K3 s h a l l have a minimum yard depth of 35 feet. No project walkway s h a l l be located within 30 feet of the window and this 30 feet s h a l l be regarded as the minimum privacy z o n e . T h e r e are no elaborations offered as to how and why the various dimensions were decided upon or on the theory behind what constitutes a privacy zone. (see appendix IV) When i t comes to the more objective p r i n c i p l e s for standards, building codes and zoning by-laws there i s substantial recogni-tion by a l l parties in the housing development process that regu-latio n s based on health and safety factors are necessary and that a project w i l l have to'meet these requirements. However, the l e v e l of agreement decreases when dealing with regulatory guide-li n e s that are a combination of interpretive design p r i n c i p l e s and required design solutions. In such cases the regulatory guideline becomes a contradiction in terms. The Evaluative Type The term Evaluative guidelines refers to their use within the development approval process rather than their s p e c i f i c -24- , content. Clear cut regulatory guidelines may be c o r r e c t l y used for evaluative purposes by planning departments. However, genera-t i v e , interpretive design guidelines cause considerable d i f f i c u l t y when they are u t i l i z e d in an evaluative, sense. Guidelines intended to help generate innovative solutions are, to a large degree, interpretive and present decision-making problems that w i l l be addressed in the case study. As w i l l be shown in this study, many of the problems concern-ing the use of design guidelines res u l t from the fact that they are rarely mutually exclusive in type and are frequently compos-ites of two or even three of the categories discussed in this chapter. Regardless of the type of design guidelines or whether i t i s a composite or not there are nevertheless some concerns common to a l l guidelines. These concerns f a l l into two general categories, those based on behavioural user needs and those based on aesthetic/urban design considerations. Behavioural user needs id e n t i f y some basic requirements for privacy, t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , i d e n t i t y and sense of community in a multiple housing project. The aesthetic/urban design concerns try to inspire a r c h i t e c t u r a l beauty in housing design and suggest various ways of harmonizing a housing project in terms of scale, materials and design with i t s immediate surroundings. The terms aesthetics and urban design are synthesized for beauty, as one author has stated, i s the essence of urban design.8 In order to f a c i l i t a t e a clearer understanding of the content of design guidelines several user needs and aesthetic/urban design considerations w i l l be examined in this chapter. -25-Behavioural User Needs The s p e c i f i c kinds of needs that w i l l be addressed include t e r r i t o r i a l i t y , i d e n t i t y , privacy, amenities, sense of community and the creation of safe environments. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and a r t i c u l a t i o n of these needs evolved from both the studies of the human ecology movement as well as the user s a t i s f a c t i o n research conducted in the s i x t i e s and early seventies. T e r r i t o r i a l i t y T r a d i t i o n a l l y in the a r c h i t e c t u r a l profession, t e r r i t o r -i a l i t y has been expressed as the desire to design for a sense of place - the i n s t i l l i n g of feelings of belonging and i d e n t i t y . 9 A description of t e r r i t o r y which i s well suited to the approach expressed in most design guidelines i s the one offered by Psychol-ogist Robert Sommer; "Territory i s an area controlled by an in d i v i d u a l , family, or other face-to-face c o l l e c t i v i t y . . . . T h e emphasis i s on physical possession, actual or potential as well as defence....(which in humans) r e l i e s more on symbols such as name plates, fences and personal possessions than physical combat or aggressive displays.-^ In the r e s i d e n t i a l world t e r r i t o r i a l i t y may be viewed as the i n s t i n c t i v e urge to have private t e r r i t o r y upon which one can imprint his personality and express himself as he chooses by means of personal possessions. These expressions are reflected in the ways people plant their gardens, paint their front doors, choose their fences and u t i l i z e their open spaces. One par-t i c u l a r design guideline currently used for multi-family housing developments in Vancouver states that: At higher densities c l a r i t y of perception of what i s "mine" or "ours" or " t h e i r s " , and who these groups are in r e l a t i o n to the i n d i v i d u a l , i s v i t a l to housing -26-satisfaction....When spheres of control are c l e a r l y defined t e r r i t o r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s become more evident. This c l a r i t y of boundaries and t e r r i t o r i e s contributes to resident r e s p o n s i b i l i t y in the upkeep and surveillance of their respective environments. This i s c r i t i c a l at the interface of private t e r r i -i i tory and semi-public/public t e r r i t o r i e s . 1 1 Pr ivacy The measure of personal privacy in North American r e s i d e n t i a l l i f e s t y l e has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been the single family house. This is e a s i l y understood since the single family building form has been the most popular and sought after residence for at least two centuries. However, in our present s i t u a t i o n of rapidly r i s i n g land and building costs this highly desired form i s now un-affordable to an increasing percentage of households. As a r e s u l t numerous multiple or compact housing developments have been pro-duced as viable economic al t e r n a t i v e s . Yet in most cases the buyer purchases the condominium or townhouse with the same ex-pectation of privacy as i s associated with a single-family l i f e -s t yle and discovers quite soon that the higher density housing project f a l l s far short of i n i t i a l expectations. The resident experiences the i r r i t a t i o n s and f r u s t r a t i o n s of surveillance of personal a c t i v i t i e s by neighbours, blocked views, poor sound insulation and unclear d e f i n i t i o n s of private vs. public open spaces a l l contributing to a feeling of lack of privacy. Architect Ron Walkey has stated that in a l l housing s i t u a -tions privacy i s achieved through some combination of the follow-ing three components: a) Separation through distance b) Separation through architecture or technology c) Separation by s o c i a l custom In single family areas the separation through distance has been achieved by setbacks from public roads, sidewalks and from other -27-houses. Privacy through architecture and technology i s achieved through the use of steps, porches and doors which provide entrance t r a n s i t i o n s . Separation by s o c i a l custom i s accomplished by general public acceptance and respect for the uses and maintenance of the yard space around the house - the back yard i s more private and personal, the front yard acts as a t r a n s i t i o n between the public street and the house. Given these design features i t i s perhaps easier to understand why privacy i s not e a s i l y achieved in higher density r e s i d e n t i a l developments. F i r s t , separation through distance may be minimal when houses are stacked, ad-jo i n i n g , or overlooking each other in close proximity. Further-more project walkways and public streets are often located at uncomfortable distances from the units. Secondly, privacy through architecture and technology may be non-existent i f steps are absent and porches and entranceways are i l l - d e f i n e d . F i n a l l y , as for s o c i a l custom separation, open space in multiple housing projects i s very often almost e n t i r e l y dedicated to the semi-public realm. Walkey states that: The majority of outside space i s merely decorative -setting an image to the public world. Balconies and private gardens are minimal and usually are under the control of the c o l l e c t i v e opinion of the neigh-bours in the c l u s t e r . Often the maintenance and the type of use of outdoor space i s regulated by management firms or by r e s t r i c t i v e covenant, set down by the o r i g i n a l owner. This i s one of the new concepts in l i v i n g which i s t o t a l l y unfamiliar to residents accustomed to single-family neighbourhoods. 1 3 In response to the problems of privacy in multiple housing projects several design guidelines recommend clear separations of the land into those areas which are private, semi-public and public. To approximate the l i f e s t y l e of the single family home i t i s suggested that most of the land should be dedicated for private areas which are c l e a r l y delineated in t e r r i t o r i a l terms. -28-The s o c i a l custom of front and back yards for eachi'unit i s a p r i n c i p l e most medium density guidelines have embraced. Care-f u l attention to entrances as points of t r a n s i t i o n i s recommended as i s planting of hedges and the use of fencing to define v i s u a l l y and a c o u s t i c a l l y private and public areas. Oblique s i t i n g , extended walls, the positioning of windows and balconies and l e v e l changes are some suggested ways of ensuring privacy through architecture and technology. The lack of internal privacy of the units because of poorly constructed and sound-insulated party walls i s a frequent complaint of townhouse and compact housing residents. Internal privacy may also mean privacy from members of ones own family within the in d i v i d u a l unit. According to A. F. Westin, privacy functions to protect one's needs for personal autonomy, to provide for emotional release, to o f f e r the opportunity for self-evaluation and to o f f e r limited and protected communication. The types of privacy that Westin claims w i l l s a t i s f y these functions include solitude, intimacy, anonymity and r e s e r v e . ^ Many design guide-li n e s offer suggestions for meeting these most personal needs for privacy by recommending undesignated extra rooms, special-areas such as nooks and crannies for a c t i v i t i e s including reading and quiet contemplation, i s o l a t i o n of certain spaces from sight, noise and smells and the zoning of a c t i v i t y spaces so that sound compatible areas adjoin, and noise generating areas are separated from quiet areas. Sense of Community While design guidelines o f f e r suggestions and recommendations which attempt to provide for t e r r i t o r i a l and privacy needs they also l i s t methods whereby interaction with neighbours can occur -29-and a sense of community can be developed. Several design guide-l i n e s indicate that there should be opportunities within a s i t e for neighbourly interaction but few maintain a deterministic view that such spaces w i l l necessarily res u l t in this behaviour. As Herbert Gans has suggested, "Propinquity - in a physical sense -does not lead to friendship formation among neighbours unless there i s also some homogeniety of values." 1^ Nevertheless there are c e r t a i n l y potential areas of i n t e r -action and these are l i k e l y to be in childrens areas, laundry and work areas, a landscaped s i t e , a c t i v i t y centers, meeting rooms and project walkways. C l a i r e Cooper states "the key in terms of design to foster relaxed meetings between people seems to be the provision of some form of semi-private space in which a small number of people see each other f a i r l y frequently. This might comprise a back or front yard or front porch flanked by others; a staircase or access corridor shared by a small number of families. Where there i s an abrupt break between the t o t a l l y private space of the house or apartment, and the t o t a l l y public space of a long anonymous corridor or sidewalk, people immediately put on a public face and i t seems less easy for them to make contact with others."16 Common parking areas, and the arrangement of units in small clusters around an open space or c u l de sac are a few of the guidelines offered to f a c i l i t a t e contacts and a sense of community through design. The area of greatest d i f f i c u l t y for the designer i s in trying to find an appropriate balance between the needs for privacy and t e r r i t o r i a l i t y and the need for s o c i a l contact. A few guidelines have recognized and have attempted to deal d i r e c t l y -30-with t h i s delimna. For example the C i t y of Vancouver's Guidelines for Multi-Family Housing state that "Given that most neigh-bouring w i l l occur with neighbours close-by the configuration of units should allow only a limited number of opportunities for interaction ( i . e . short corridors or walkways with a small number of units o f f i t tends to allow residents more choice in whether or not they want to interact with their neighbours."^ "The l e v e l of interaction within a given project i s to some extent dictated by the s o c i a l mix of the residents which may in turn be a function of unit types and s i z e s . Family units suitable for small children are most l i k e l y to produce interactions far more intense than a project which includes singles and c h i l d l e s s couples.18 While design guidelines may or may not address the question of s o c i a l mix in terms of family structure and age differences most avoid dealing with the p o l i t i c a l l y and s o c i a l l y sensitive question of r e s i d e n t i a l mix in terms of d i f f e r e n t socioeconomic classes of people. The interested reader may wish to pursue this topic further and i s advised that there i s a substantial body of l i t e r a t u r e which has approached the question from several d i f f e r e n t perspectives. Herbert Gans and William Michelson are two possible sources for a good introduction. Amenities Amenities refer primarily to public and semi-public open space which may be u t i l i z e d for recreation, sports and play act-i v i t i e s and to the equipment provided to carry out such a c t i v i -t i e s ( i . e . playground equipment - swings, s l i d e s , sandboxes, etc., tennis courts, swimming pools, baseball diamonds, basketball courts and indoor f a c i l i t i e s ) . The amenity areas can be categorized •31-into those which are most suitable for pre-school, school, teen-age and adult a c t i v i t i e s . Open space can also refer to passive .'• landscaped areas which provide desirable natural settings for residents and which can also provide noise or v i s u a l screens. These areas may include walkways, benches, lakes etc. A l l of these features contribute to the l i v e a b i l i t y of multiple housing projects and are important considerations that determine residents' perception of density in such developments. Every design guideline currently being used in the Vancouver area contains recommendations on either the preservation or use of open space and recreational areas in compact and multi-family housing projects. While similar recommendations can be found in the l i t e r a t u r e and standards of the aesthetics movement, current design guidelines have attempted to. deal with the spe c i a l prob-lems of designing play spaces for various c h i l d age groups as well as how the amenity needs of adults and children can be made both separate and compatible. Whereas the language of aesthetics may state that there should be designated open spaces where children can play, the research behind current guidelines indicates that "children tend to play anywhere and everywhere, and not just in designated play spaces." 1 9  A "Safe" Environment Most of the design guidelines attempt to deal with the ob-je c t i v e of providing r e s i d e n t i a l projects which are safe places to l i v e in the sense that they are free from crime. The guide-l i n e s can embrace two overlapping strategies for crime cont r o l . The f i r s t c a l l e d target hardening advocates the use of locks, alarms, intercom systems and other technological innovations in order to d i r e c t l y reduce the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of potential crime targets. The second strategy stems d i r e c t l y from Oscar Newman's -32-concept of "Defensible Space" which approaches crime control i n d i r e c t l y through the impact of building and landscape design on s o c i a l organization and behaviour. Newman suggests that multiple family dwellings might be designed so as to enhance feelings of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y and proprietorship and a sense of "community" among building r e s i d e n t s . 2 0 In o u t l i n i n g mechanisms for creating boundaries which specify a hierarchy of increasingly private zones - from public street to private apartment, Newman i d e n t i f i e s those boundary definers that are either real or symbolic b a r r i e r s . Real barriers include 'U' shaped buildings, high walls, fences, locked gates and doors while symbolic barr i e r s may be open gateways, l i g h t standards, a short run of steps, planting and changes in the texture of the walking surface. Both serve a common purpose: to inform that one i s passing from a space which i s public where ones presence i s not questioned through a barrier to a space which i s private and where ones presence requires j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Newman states that "by employing a combination of symbolic barriers i t is possible to indicate that one i s crossing a series of bounda-ri e s in the t r a n s i t i o n from public access paths and spaces to sequentially more private areas without employing l i t e r a l b a r r i e r s to define the spaces along the route." 2- 1- Several design guide-l i n e s suggest the creation of symbolic barriers in the form of surveillance opportunities of public and semi-public private open space, c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d entrances through changes in materials, grade separations and t e r r i t o r i a l markers ( i . e . mailboxes, address numbers, decorations, e t c . ) , well l i t project walkways and symbolically defined separations of public, semi-public and private spaces. -33-Aesthetic/Urban Design The aesthetic considerations which are expressed in most design guidelines discuss choice of building materials, s i t i n g , views, landscaping, open space relationships and the massing and a r t i c u l a t i o n of the b u i l t form. It i s generally recommended that the building be designed to avoid a monotonous or i n -s t i t u t i o n a l appearance. Almost a l l guidelines express the desire to preserve natural amenities such as a ravine, a stand of trees or any other s i g n i f i c a n t topographical features and to create such features where possible in the design of a housing project. S i t i n g the project to take maximum advantage of poten t i a l views i s a p r i n c i p l e frequently advocated in design guidelines. De-t a i l e d aspects such as screening parking and garbage areas with fences or landscape material and the placement and design of project walkways and open spaces are some other aesthetic con-cerns that may be found in most of the guidelines. The urban design p r i n c i p l e s expressed in design guidelines try to ensure that s u f f i c i e n t consideration w i l l be given to the relationship of a housing project to i t s immediate surroundings. For example the Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t s Compact Housing Checklist states that a new project should harmonize in size and scale as well as environmentally, s o c i a l l y and economic-a l l y with i t s immediate surroundings. The Checklist i d e n t i f i e s the following c r i t e r i a for achieving harmony: - Height, volume and number of buildings should complement those on adjacent s i t e s . - Lights, poles, and paths should harmonize with existing ones. - Location and s i t i n g should be designed to avoid blocking sunlight onto adjacent s i t e s . - Physical shapes and exterior f i n i s h e s should be made to blend in with surroundings. - The project should not increase the p o s s i b i l i t y -34-of p o l l u t i o n to nearby waterways. - The project design should not cause a serious i n -crease in the erosian of s o i l s . - It should include a f a c i l i t y that w i l l benefit the entire neighbourhood. - A new development should r e v i t a l i z e an area's pro-perty values.22 Several guidelines address the problem of preserving views and sunlight both for the ind i v i d u a l units within the project and for surrounding developments. The K i t s i l a n o Design Guidelines suggest that "the apartment building should be located on the s i t e to take maximum advantage of sun, views, existing trees and land-scaping, etc. and minimize noise problems, overshadowing, view blockage, e t c . " . 2 3 Proximity to neighbourhood services and amenities i s another important set of urban design considerations. The distance of housing projects to schools, shops, s o c i a l and medical services as well as community clubs and playgrounds are some of the c r i -t e r i a for good s i t e selection l i s t e d in many design guidelines. Functional aspects of a multiple-housing project including the design, use and maintenance of communal laundry f a c i l i t i e s , garbage disposal, parking areas, c i r c u l a t i o n routes, meeting rooms, storage areas as well as the creation of a hazard-free environment are recommendations that may also be found in several design guidelines. Summary Three categories of design guidelines have been i d e n t i f i e d in this chapter. They include generative guidelines which are intended to help generate design solutions that w i l l address i n -congruences between a physical environment and human behaviour, regulatory guidelines that may include rather s p e c i f i c and r i g i d requirements putting them in the category of standards rather -35-than guidelines and evaluative guidelines which operate as sets of c r i t e r i a by which to judge the quality of project design. Regardless of type, there are some concerns which are common to a l l design guidelines. These include user needs for t e r r i -t o r i a l i t y , i d e n t i t y , privacy, amenities, sense of community and the creation of safe environments and aesthetic/urban design considerations which deal with s i t i n g , views, materials, land-scaping, open space, massing and a r t i c u l a t i o n of b u i l t form and the relationship of a project to i t s immediate environment. This chapter has endeavoured to explain the intended use of design guidelines in the housing development process by discussing both the content and format of the various types of guidelines. -36-CHAPTER III  Footnotes 1. Morris, William, The American Heritage Dictionary of the  English Language, (Houghton, M i f f l i n Company, Boston, 1969) , p. 962 2. Alexander, Christopher, A Pattern Language, Center For Environ-mental Structures, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1977). 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Montgomery, Robert, "Pattern Language" in The A r c h i t e c t u r a l  Forum, Whitney Publications, Vol. 132, No. 1, Jan./Feb., 1970, New York), p. 54 6. Ibid., p. 53 7. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Site Planning Hand-book, (Ottawa, 1966), p. 21 8. Spreiregan, Paul D., Urban Design: The Architecture of Towns  and C i t i e s , (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Toronto, 1965), p. 106 9. Lipman, Alan, T e r r i t o r i a l i t y : "A Useful A r c h i t e c t u r a l Concept?" 10. Sommer, Robert, "Man's Proximate Environment", Journal of Social  Issues, Raven, Bertram H. (ed.)Dept. of Psych . Univ. of C a l i f . Vol. 3 11. McAfee, Ann, Guidelines For Multi-Family Housing, (City Plan-ning Department, Vancouver, 1977), p. 6 12. Walkey/Olson Architects, "Privacy in Compact Housing", summary report in A Qualitative Checklist For. Compact Housing, Ted Wrinkle & Associates (ed.) (Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Department, Vancouver, February, 1975), p. 36 13. Ibid., p. 36 14. Westin, A. F., Neighbourhood Space, Randolph T. Hester, J r . (ed.) (Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., 1975), pp. 56-7 15. Gans, Herbert J . , People and Plans, Essays on Urban Problems  and Solutions, (Basic Books Inc., Publishers, New York, 1968) p. 155 16. Cooper, C l a i r e , "Resident Attitudes Towards the Environment at St. Francis Square, San Francisco: A Summary of the I n i t i a l Findings." July, 1970 (Center For Planning and Development Research at the University of C a l i f o r n i a at Berkeley) 17. McAfee, Op. C i t . , p. 34 18. Ibid., p. 32 -37-19. Cooper, C l a i r e , "Children in Residential Areas: Guidelines for Designers" in Landscape Architecture, (American Society of Landscape Architects, City of L o u i s v i l l e , Oct. 1974) p. 373 20. Engstad, Peter A., Crime Prevention Through Environmental  Design: A Canadian Response (Ministry of the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada, Ottawa, 1975), p. 2 21. Newman, Oscar, Defensible Space (The MacMillan Company, New York, 1972), p. 63 22. Wrinkle, Op. C i t . , p.3. 23. K i t s i l a n o Design Guidelines (City Planning Department, Van-couver , 1977) , p. 20 -38-CHAPTER IV  Introduction This chapter analyzes several design guidelines that have recently been developed by the private market sector in the Lower Mainland. The philosophy behind these guidelines, their content and the approval process associated with their use i s described, assessed and contrasted with Government guidelines. Much of the information contained in this chapter i s based on a survey of four major land developers in the Vancouver area. The developers were chosen on the basis of their extensive involvements in housing in the Lower Mainland as well as in other parts of Canada and because of their use and support for design guidelines. The four development companies are Block Bros. Contractors Ltd., Carma Developers Ltd., Genstar Development Company and NuWest Development Corporation Ltd. Although the Genstar Development Company does not have a standardized design guideline booklet for their housing developments they do exercise project s p e c i f i c design controls. The survey data i s presented in d e t a i l in appendix V. The Private Market Design Guidelines In recent years several large land development companies in the Vancouver area have produced their own version of design guide-l i n e s for housing. These guidelines are directed at the builders who purchase one or more lo t s from the development company for the purpose of constructing a single family house within a standard or zero l o t l i n e subdivision. The private development companies are concerned with the q u a l i t y of the product the builders con-struct for very often the builders are shareholders in the develop-ment companies. -39-Private market design guidelines were produced i n i t i a l l y to protect l o t purchasers from design errors on adjacent l o t s that could lower property and resale values on their home. This p r i n -c i p l e remains as part of the philosophy behind developer genera-ted guidelines but their use i s also j u s t i f i e d on the basis of bet-ter marketability of the units and for producing entire neighbour-hoods which have high standards of aesthetics and l i v e a b i l i t y . For example, the preamble to Carma Developers Ltd. Design Guide-li n e s states: The success of a housing development project i s d i r e c t l y related to the buying public's acceptance of the product. In a large part, that acceptance i s based upon the "look" of a project; the f i r s t impression i s often the la s t i n g impression. Creation of a pleasant environment for family l i v i n g i s the p r i n c i p l e purpose of i n s t i t u t -ing development guidelines in any subdivision. The vi s u a l appearance and physical placement of in d i v i d u a l houses and corresponding i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s of adjacent groups of houses are of utmost importance in achieving this environment. Application of the best design p r i n c i p l e s within a subdivision benefits a l l - i n i t i a l l y the builder because of improved marketability and subsequently the owner because of better l i v e a b i l i t y and appreciation of r e a l estate values. 1 On the other hand the use of design guidelines i s not perceived by developers to s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase the cost of producing hous-ing.. A company spokesman for Block Bros. Contractors Ltd. stated that, "Design guidelines increase the costs of developing housing units but only by a minimal amount ( i . e . $1,000 extra for cedar shake roof and $1,200 for higher quality landscaping)." 2 "NuWest Development Corporation's spokesman thought design guides.' l i n e s prevent a builder from using cheaper readily available material that i s a e s t h e t i c a l l y displeasing rather than higher quality materials that may not cost very much more."3 "Genstar's spokesman believes that design guidelines increase the cost of producing housing but added that this was refl e c t e d in a higher -40-sale price for the finished product ( i . e . house and l o t ) . " ^ The costs of producing the guidelines themselves i s not seen to be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor at a l l (in terms of time, e f f o r t and publica-tion - approximately $400.00 - $500.00). Private market design guidelines are t y p i c a l l y concerned with house types, building and l o t grades, s i t i n g and setbacks, land-scaping, exterior materials, finishes and colours and in some cases minimum standards for dwelling s i z e s . Creating a variety of house types i s a p r i n c i p l e related to the "look-alike" and "no look-alike" subdivision controls discussed in Chapter I I . The controls e s s e n t i a l l y seek to provide aesthetic interest in sub-d i v i s i o n design by preventing developments which are either excessively uniform or too diverse. For example, Block Bros. Contractors Design Guidelines state, "Since i t i s the intention to create an imaginative high quality r e s i d e n t i a l development, the "look-alike" appearance s h a l l be avoided throughout the pro-j e c t . However, while d i v e r s i t y i s advocated i t i s also expected that the builder w i l l give consideration to the height and massing relationships of the houses within the s u b d i v i s i o n . " 5 In other words compatibility in scale i s desirable while excessive contrast i s not. Guidelines for grading and s i t i n g include recommendations on allowable slopes for yards and driveways, l e t t i n g the design of the house follow the contour of l o t , preventing excessive s i t e f i l l i n g and the use of retaining structures unless properly treat-ed a r c h i t e c t u r a l l y , preserving natural landscape features and minimizing height differences through front and side yard set-backs. Guidelines on exterior finishes l i s t acceptable siding and roof materials and colours as well as regulations on more -41-detailed features such as garage doors, windows and garbage areas. In the Lower Mainland, private market as well as a number of govern-ment generated guidelines have favoured cedar siding and roof-ing and also the use of "earthy" colours ( i . e . various tones of browns, greens and greys). The development companies vary in their degree of regulation of materials. Whereas Block Bros. Contractors Ltd. has generally refused to allow stucco, masonry, concrete block and aluminum siding in some of their developments, other companies such as the NuWest Development Corporation w i l l allow the above mentioned materials to be used so long as the houses are compatible with adjacent houses in terms of scale, colour and trim. The "look-alike" and "no look-alike" p r i n c i p l e s are quite c l e a r l y expressed in Carma Developers Guidelines on exterior f i n i s h e s : "To further enhance the t o t a l development concept in subdivisions small groups of houses are to have similar exterior f i n i s h i n g materials and complementary colour schemes. Groups of two or three adjacent houses w i l l be given the same roof colour. However, groups with the same basic material f i n i s h must be separated from any other similar group by at least two houses having a d i f f e r e n t basic, f i n i s h . " 6 A few private market design guidelines are to a degree s i t e s p e c i f i c in the sense that they attempt to respond to the unique features of a given s i t e by stating recommendations concerning the preservation of s i g n i f i c a n t views or natural landscape elements. For example Block Bros. Contractors Design Guidelines for Single Family Houses in Vancouver's Locarno Subdivision state: The main assets of this development are the view of the North Shore, the mountains, the i n l e t and parts of the downtown area. In design and configuration of the dwel-l i n g s , p a r t i c u l a r attention s h a l l be given to maintain as much of this view as possible.... i t i s required that -4 2-a l l dwellings maintain a low s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c towards the south ( u p h i l l ) . M u l t i - l e v e l f l a t roofs or a combination of f l a t and sloped roof areas, possibly with skylights are considered a good solution. Also, to preserve the view as much as possible, the buildings s h a l l be f i t t e d into a 'building height envelope'.^ Generally, private.market design guidelines have avoided deal-ing with i n t e r i o r arrangements of the units and are r e s t r i c t e d to exterior elevations and s i t i n g . In contrast to most government guidelines there i s a t o t a l absence of discussion of the psy-chological and s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects of privacy, i d e n t i t y , t e r r i -t o r i a l i t y , open space, etc. This of course can be explained to a large degree by the fact that most of the design guidelines address themselves to single family subdivisions which for the most part offer adequate provisions for these basic l i v e a b i l i t y needs. Private market design guidelines are f a i r l y regulatory in the sense that many of the recommendations are not subject to any degree of interpretation and may be more co r r e c t l y l a b e l l e d as standards. While some of the guidelines allow some degree of interpretation, this i s only within rather t i g h t l y prescribed parameters. However, since the design guidelines only deal with certain aspects of housing aesthetics they are not perceived by any of the developers interviewed to be regulatory in that they i n h i b i t creative housing design or produce monotonous standardized subdivisions. For example, a representative from Block Bros. Contractors Ltd. stated: "In so far as our guidelines relate to s i t i n g , landscaping, and exterior f i n i s h e s , we f e e l there i s sub-s t a n t i a l f l e x i b i l i t y within the guidelines to produce very creative designs. This i s evident in our Locarno Subdivision."8 The success of housing projects i s judged by the developers . in terms of marketability and a c c e p t a b i l i t y and there i s l i t t l e need seen for engaging in seemingly redundant debates on how the neighbor--43-hoods should function as s o c i a l spaces. There are no land development companies in the Lower Mainland which have produced a generalized set of design guidelines for multi-family developments. With this form of housing, the design process works as follows: (1) The development company may purchase the project with a r c h i t e c t u r a l plans complete. (2) If the development company prepares an o r i g i n a l concept then they would f i r s t determine the market for the project and a general concept i s then developed within municipal guidelines. The general concept i s then presented to an architect and the f i n a l design evolves out of a series of presentations by the architect and subsequent revisions by the developer. Since the developers consider every project to be more or less unique they do not have a standard set of design guidelines which they give to the ar c h i t e c t at the i n i t i a l design stage of a project. Various developers have in fact drawn up design guidelines for multi-family housing which are project s p e c i f i c and which are sub-sequently adopted into the land use contract that may be required with the municipality. The Approval Process The approval process related to the use of the private market design guidelines in the Lower Mainland follows th*i:s sequence. The builder i s requested by the land development company to proceed in a two-step manner; the f i r s t step i s a preliminary consultation with the land developers or their consultant planning/ engineering firm to ensure that costly time-consuming alterations w i l l not be necessary at the f i n a l approval stage. In some cases the land developer requests that the builder submit sketch plans -44-which w i l l a s s i s t the development company in granting an approval in p r i n c i p l e . The second step involves the submission of f i n a l drawings for formal approval by the company's a r c h i t e c t u r a l review committee or design panel. The committee or panel usually consists of two or three people; the company's project and d i s -t r i c t managers and a consultant planner. Generally, two or three sets of drawings are requested which indicate the s i t e plan, exterior elevations, floor plans and cross sections of the units. In addition i t i s requested that the plans show existing features on the l o t , proposed setbacks, l o t and building grades, drive-way locations and colour scheme information. Approval time i s very rapid, usually within one or two days although larger pro-jects require correspondingly more time. Any subsequent re-visions require approval by the ar c h i t e c t u r a l committee. Follow-up s i t e inspections ensure that the buidder has complied with the intent of the design guidelines and checks are made to monitor the s i t i n g of the houses and the materials used in the exterior f i n i s h e s . A l l of the development companies have provisions for recovering the costs of correcting any d e f i c -iencies or unacceptable diversions from the design guidelines. The NuWest Development Corporation, for example, requires the builder to post a $500.00 performance bond which i s non-refundable should the builder f a i l to comply with the guidelines. It i s important to note that there i s no connection between the approval process related to the builder and the developer and the process of securing a municipal building permit. The design guidelines are made available to builders and their designers at the time a .'."lot or lo t s are purchased. A l l of the land develop--45-Development Approval Process Related to Design Guidelines (Between Builder and Land Development Company) Preliminary Consultation with Land Developer - submission of sketch plans - Builder con-veys basic information on s t y l e , colour, etc. in order to make sure s i g n i f i c a n t a l t e r a t i o n s to f i n a l plans w i l l not be required. Approval in p r i n c i p l e . —t \ Submission of F i n a l Drawings & Forms indicating s i t e plan, ex- ( t e r i o r elevations, cross sec-tions, setbacks, l o t and b u i l d -ing grades, driveway locations, and colour scheme information, for review by the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Committee of the Development Com-pany . / V Formal Approval of Plans by Land De^ velopment Company Builder applies for Municipal Building Per-mit. Builder upon re-ceiving a Building Permit proceeds with . Construction - May be monitored both during and after construction by A r c h i t e c t u r a l Commit-tee . Revisions requested by Development Com-pany's A r c h i t e c t u r a l Committee - or -Subsequent Changes to Plans by Builder must be resubmitted to the A r c h i t e c t u r a l Committee Figure 1 -46-ment companies that use guidelines request that drawings be sub-mitted to the company for review prior to application for a b u i l d -ing permit. Most of the developers interviewed f e l t that their design guidelines had l i t t l e i f any ef f e c t s on the municipality's development approval process in terms of either speeding i t up or slowing i t down. "One developer did mention that since municipalities are very much in favour of design guidelines, their use i s seen as a way of avoiding costly time consuming debates by municipal planners and urban design panels on the merits of the project's design."9 Other than government guidelines necessary for development approval through Land Use Contracts or normal building permit procedures a l l the developers interviewed stated that they did not use any government generated guidelines in the process of developing single family housing projects. A representative for Carma Developers Ltd. stated that, "At the present time our company does not use any government guidelines although subdivisions are normally developed to conform to C.M.H.C. requirements and naturally the municipal guidelines pertain-ing to each subdivision are of utmost importance."1° Genstar Development Company's spokesman stated that they did not use any design guidelines but they believed that "government can best achieve i t s objectives by encouraging industry to use design guidelines (government guidelines). Note that I say "use" and not "compel". Summary For comparison with the information in Chapter V, this -47-chapter has described the content and philosophy behind the design guidelines that have been prepared by several major land develop-ers in the Lower Mainland. The motivation for the design guide-l i n e s i s primarily sales and p r o f i t oriented as opposed to government guidelines which are intended to ensure various user needs for l i v e a b i l i t y are met in the design of higher density housing projects and that the developments w i l l relate well to their immediate environments. In addition, the design guide-l i n e approval process between builders and developers was des-cribed. -48-CHAPTER IV  Footnotes 1. Carma Developers Ltd., Development Guidelines for Carma Sub-d i v i s i o n , 1976, p. 1 2. From Survey of Four Developers - see Appendix V, p.,136 3. Ibid., p. 13? 4. Ibid., p. 137 5. Block Bros. Contractors Ltd., Design Guidelines for Single  Family Houses in the Locarno Subdivision, 1977, p. 2 6. Carma Developers Ltd., Op. C i t . , p. 3 7. Block Bros. Contractors Ltd., Op. C i t . , p. 2 8. Survey, Op. C i t . , p;. .142 9. Ibid. , p. 13.8 10. Survey, Op. C i t . , pp. 140-141 11. Obid., p. 141 -49-CHAPTER V THE APPLICATION OF DESIGN GUIDELINES WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY OF THE ROLE OF DESIGN GUIDEZ LINES IN THE CITY OF VANCOUVER'S DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS. Introduction The previous chapters have provided background informa-tion for the development of this thesis. The h i s t o r i c a l pre-cedents which provided the research basis for design guidelines were discussed as were some explanations of the need for guidelines. In addition three major categories of design guidelines were i d e n t i f i e d in an attempt to c l a r i f y their i n -tended use within the development process. The content of design guidelines was discussed as i t w i l l to a large extent dictate the process by which they are u t i l i z e d . F i n a l l y , Chapter IV dealt with the content and process of private market guidelines and provides a body of information for comparison with some of the findings that follow. The remainder of the thesis presents a detailed descrip-tion and analysis of the use of design guidelines within the City of Vancouver's discretionary Development Permit Approval Process. The hypotheses concerning the regulatory use of design guidelines are tested against the information obtained in Chapters V and VI. Case Study Objectives The case study objectives are: 1. To test the hypotheses 2. To evaluate through the case study the usefulness of design guidelines within Vancouver's Development Approval Process. -50-3. To id e n t i f y any st r u c t u r a l and/or procedural changes to improve the applications and effectiveness of design guidelines in the development approval process. Case Study The case study i s divided into three chapters. Chapter V includes three major sections which deal with the following: (a) a comparison of the t r a d i t i o n a l development control system and the discretionary system with which the guidelines are associated. Written and graphic analysis i s presented in order to test the v a l i d i t y of the hypotheses in comparison with a system known to be regulatory in nature. (b) a description of the Ci t y of Vancouver's Development Permit Review Process. This description i s provided to further c l a r i f y the context within which design guidelines operate as well as the methods by which discretionary authority i s applied by the various panels, com-mittees and individuals which constitute the process. (c) a discussion and analysis of the t r a d i t i o n a l and discretionary development control systems in l i g h t of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e on discretionary authority. The hypotheses a'r.e also tested in regards to the information presented in this section. Chapter VI consists of the opinions and attitudes obtained through several interviews with various architects and planners who have had extensive involvement in housing development in the C i t y of Vancouver. The hypotheses i s further tested against the responses derived from these interviews. The f i n a l chapter consists of an evaluation of the v a l i d -i t y of the hypotheses, an evaluation of design guidelines in p r i n c i p l e and some possible recommendations for their future use, some suggestions for further research and the relevance of this study to urban planning. -51-Zoning Systems in Vancouver Since 1974 there have been several amendments to the C i t y of Vancouver's Zoning and Development By-Law which have resulted in a more "discretionary" approach in certain areas of the c i t y . The amendments were introduced because many members of both the planning department and the a r c h i t e c t u r a l profession f e l t the old Zoning D i s t r i c t Schedules were excessively regulatory r e s u l t -ing in mundane standardized designs that in many cases did not respond to either user needs or the immediate environment. The O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-Law for the West End states: "The well-being of the people in the West End's concentration of r e s i d e n t i a l accomodation require more than the customary regulatory mechanisms in order that the buildings, the open spaces, the streets, the transportation systems and other com-ponents of the urban scene can be arranged appropriately for the general benefit of all."-'- S i m i l a r l y , the K i t s i l a n o Design Guidelines state: "Many of the zoning changes have resulted in more of a discretionary approach to zoning....An important basis for evaluating any proposal w i l l be determining i t s impact on surrounding development. The new zoning schedules provide the necessary f l e x i b i l i t y so that a building can relate to s p e c i f i c s i t e s and environmental conditions." 2  T r a d i t i o n a l vs. Discretionary Zoning T r a d i t i o n a l Zoning - The t r a d i t i o n a l zoning d i s t r i c t schedules for medium and high density r e s i d e n t i a l development in force in the West End and K i t s i l a n o areas prior to 1974 and which are s t i l l applicable to several other parts of the c i t y placed precise l e g a l r e s t r i c t i o n s on building. Tyis type of zoning provides mathematical formulae and building envelopes into which a -52-building must be f i t t e d . This in turn places s i g n i f i c a n t res-t r i c t i o n s on the design p o s s i b i l i t i e s a vailable. The schedules consist of a set of rules which regulate the height and length of buildings, front yard and containing angles, rear yards and setbacks from lanes and the daylight obstruction angles. (See appendix VI) The e f f e c t of zoning schedules such as RM3 Multiple Dwelling D i s t r i c t (Medium Density) was to create the three storey•(35-40' high) apartment building form which can be seen in many areas of Vancouver. Almost a l l of these buildings have double loaded corridor arrangements and are set back from the front, side and rear boundary l i n e s of the property according to the minimum allowable distances stated in the zoning schedule. In the West End the higher density zoning permitted t a l l e r but no less monotonous schemes. What emerged in this area through out the s i x t i e s and early seventies were a series of high-rise box-like structures s i m i l a r l y setback from the boundaries of their s i t e s and of f e r i n g l i t t l e a r t i c u l a t i o n in the o v e r a l l design. The excessive zoning regulations combined with what was economically feasible for a developer to build lead to a continuous repetion of the same building form p a r t i c u l a r l y in the RM3 areas. Although t r a d i t i o n a l zoning i s characterized by c l e a r l y stated rules e a s i l y interpretable by a l l parties in the develop-ment process i t was eventually realized that the product of such a process was unsatisfactory. Most of the buildings did not make a posi t i v e contribution or impact on the surrounding neighbourhood, nor did they properly meet user needs for features such as useable balconies and open spaces. Furthermore t r a d i -t i o n a l zoning regulations are quantitative in nature and neglect -53-to deal q u a l i t a t i v e l y with building design. As a res u l t i n s t i t u t i o n a l , poorly a r t i c u l a t e d building forms which meet minimum quantitative c r e t e r i a are sanctioned. Discretionary Zoning - The 1974 O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-laws for the West End and Downtown D i s t r i c t s explain that "the intention of these By-laws and the accompanying guidelines i s to ensure that a l l buildings and developments meet the highest standards of design and amenity for the benefit of a l l users of the area and to provide f l e x i b i l i t y and c r e a t i v i t y in the pre-paration of development p r o p o s a l s . T h e discretionary O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-laws and the accompanying planning p o l i c i e s and design guidelines replaced the t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t r i c t schedules in the Downtown and West End areas. In False Creek and the F a i r -view Slopes, i n d u s t r i a l and commercial zoning was replaced by the False Creek O f f i c i a l Development Plan (po l i c i e s and design guidelines) and the discretionary FM-1 Fairview Multiple Dwel-l i n g D i s t r i c t zoning schedule respectively. In addition new special discretionary schedules were created in K i t s i l a n o for apartment and commercial developments. There are three instruments which form the basis for the discretionary zoning system. These are 1) The O f f i c i a l Develop-ment Plan By-law, 2) Planning P o l i c i e s and 3) The Design Guide-l i n e s . 1. The O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-law The O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-laws provide the general parameters for a development such as use, density, height, park-ing and loading and s o c i a l and recreational amenities and f a c i l i -t i e s . They also include statements o u t l i n i n g basic planning of-j e c t i v e s . For example the West End O f f i c i a l Development Plan -54-By-law states: The intent i s to ensure that: (i) high standards of design and development are maintained throughout the West End; and, (i i ) that the general environment, of the West End is maintained as an a t t r a c t i v e place in which to l i v e or to v i s i t . A d i s t i n c t i o n i s drawn in O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-laws between regulations and interpretive requirements as follows: (i) regulations are set out for land use and the maximum standards for building density in terms of. floor space ratio:: and the.minimum .require-ments for parking and loading. ( i i ) interpretative requirements are set out with respect to the permitted height of buildings, the maximum r e s i d e n t i a l density in terms of dwelling units per acre and s o c i a l and recrea-t i o n a l amenities and f a c i l i t i e s . ^ In the design and/or approval of ind i v i d u a l developments v a r i a -tions are permitted in the interpretative requirements. It i s further stated in a l l the O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-laws that "A s i g n i f i c a n t degree of f l e x i b i l i t y i s given to architects and others in the preparation of development proposals. A s i g n i f i c a n t degree of discretionary authority i s also given to those charged with interpretation of the p o l i c i e s and regu-l a t i o n s . " 5  Planning P o l i c i e s The Planning P o l i c i e s enable those concerned with develop-ment proposals to be aware of the general objectives of the c i t y for various areas. In addition to general goal statements advocating the enhancement or preservation of desirable community features the p o l i c i e s may also deal more s p e c i f i c a l l y with objectives for growth, land use and density, movement, parks -55-and open spaces, t r a f f i c and transportation, community services and s o c i a l mix. The Planning P o l i c i e s are for reference only and do not form part of the Zoning By-law or O f f i c i a l Develop-ment Plan. However, the various decision-making bodies des-cribed l a t e r are guided by planning policy statements in i n t e r -preting the O f f i c i a l Development Plan or the design guidelines. The Design Guidelines (Area Specific) The design guidelines do not form an int e g r a l part of the Downtown and West End O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-laws or the special Zoning D i s t r i c t s for K i t s i l a n o but they are a part of the False Creek O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-law. Since the development of entire neighbourhoods i s being created in False Creek where none existed before and because the project i s being designed by d i f f e r e n t groups of architects over a staged period the design guidelines are considered to be an.essential element in providing q u a l i t a t i v e design control and coordination. In the case of the False Creek O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-law a d i s t i n c t i o n i s made between three forms of p o l i c i e s and regulations which require the following interpretations: 1. mandatory requirements for area development plans and/or development permit applications and for which no discretionary interpretation i s possible. 2. area s p e c i f i c requirements that may be interpreted for development areas within the False Creek Basin. 3. general o v e r a l l guidelines which provide q u a l i t a t i v e guidance as to the required form of development through design interpretation, but which do not require l i t e r a l interpretation for each i n d i v i d u a l area. ^  "In the Downtown, West End and K i t s i l a n o D i s t r i c t s the design guidelines replaced the yard requirements, l i g h t angle controls and daylight obstruction angle requirements associated with regulatory Zoning D i s t r i c t Schedules. However, i t i s intended AREA SPECIFIC DESIGN GUIDELINES USED IN THE CITY OF VANCOUVER Design Guideline Originating Organization Date Subject Matter D i s t r i c t Downtown Design C i t y of Vancouver Sept/75 1. Open Space - at, above and D.D. (Downtown Guidelines Planning Department below grade. D i s t r i c t ) 2. Social and Cul t u r a l Ameni-t i e s - preservation and con-servation, mixed uses. 3. Views 4. Environmental - sun and shade, wind and calm, introduction of nature. 5. Physical Design - architec-t u r a l , bulk and height, r e l a t i o n - ^ ship to immediate area. 'o> False Creek Design Guide-l i n e s Thompson, Berwick & Pratt A r c h i t e c t s , Engineers & Planners Table I Nov/74 1. Site Planning•-. noise, pedes-train-vehicular t r a f f i c , views, grades, privacy, yards. 2. Residential Use - bldg. and dwelling types, sun and shadows, balconies, views, entrances and corri d o r s . 3. Ind u s t r i a l Use - r e l a t i o n to habitation. 4. Commercial Use - location and design. 5. C i r c u l a t i o n & Parking - design and s i t e plan. 6. Open Space - hierarchy, con-nectors. 7. Water's Edge - va r i e t y , i r r e g u l a r F.C.C.D.D. (False Creek Comprehensive Development Dis^ t r i c t ) Design Guidelines incorporated into the O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-Law (4812) Design Guidelines O r i g i n a t i n g Organization K i t s i l a n o Design Ci t y of Vancouver Plan-Guidelines ning Department West End Planning P o l i c i e s and Design Guidelines C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department Table I, con't. Date Subject Matter D i s t r i c t Jan/77 1. Goals for K i t s i l a n o 2. P o l i c i e s on E x i s t i n g and new Residential Bldgs. 3. Design Objectives - heights, yard requirements, f l o o r space r a t i o , open space, s i t e condi-tions, streetscape, bldg. design, dwelling u n i t s , pedestrian ways. 4. Shopping Areas P o l i c i e s & Design Objectives. 5. Demolition P o l i c i e s . Apartment Areas (RM3-B & RM3-A1) Commercial Areas (C-2B) K i t s i l a n o i l June/75 1. Overall P o l i c i e s population, W.E.D. (West housing, commercial, parks, trans- End D i s t r i c t ) portation, community f a c i l i t i e s . 2. Building Design .- a r c h i t e c t u r a l treatment, privacy, i d e n t i t y , views, sunshine, roof tops, balconies, entrances, grouping of bldgs., maxi-mum d e n s i t i e s . 3. R e t a i l Stores - entrances, l e v e l s , scale, weather protection, outdoor cafes. 4. Open Space - nature, a c t i v i t y , protection, privacy. -58-that guidelines should go further than this insofar as they represent a quality control upon which to base design decisions and judgements. The guidelines prescribe the general c r i t e r i a for new development and form the basis for the preparation of, and approval of development proposals. Various municipal s t a f f and several o f f i c i a l c i v i c boards and panels may in their d i s -cretion, refuse of require modification to a Development Permit Application proposal for f a i l u r e to meet the standards of the guidelines in whole or in part."^ Design Guidelines (General) In addition the area s p e c i f i c guidelines that are used in Vancouver there are several general design guidelines that can be u t i l i z e d for both the design and evaluation of housing pro-jects to be located anywhere in the c i t y . These guidelines include: 1. A Qualitative Checklist for Compact Housing (Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Department). 2. Guidelines for Multi-Family Housing, Needs, Pr i n c i p l e s and Recommendations for Medium and High Density Housing for Families with Children (City of Vancouver Planning Department). 3. The Site Planning Handbook (Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation). 4. Urban Family Housing - Planning Guidelines (De-partment of Housing, Province' of B r i t i s h Columbia). As i s evident, these guidelines have been generated b y . a l l govern-ment l e v e l s ; municipal, regional, p r o v i n c i a l and federal. The Development Permit Approval Process The Development Permit Approval Process defines those groups and committees who interpret design guidelines in the review of development proposals and the rights of discretionary authority associated with that review. A development permit application for a housing project in GENERAL DESIGN GUIDELINES USED IN THE CITY OF VANCOUVER Design Guideline Originating Organization Date Subject Matter D i s t r i c t A Q u a l i t a t i v e Checklist for Compact Hous-ing Greator Vancouver Re-ional D i s t r i c t - Plan-ning Department Feb/75 1. The Surroundings project harmony, housing types, open space, pedestrian-vehicular movement, f a c i l i t i e s , land-scaping . 2. House T e r r i t o r y - p r i v a -cy, i d e n t i t y , play space, park-ing, roadways and walkways, sun and weather protection. 3. In the House Unit adapt-a b i l i t y , v a r i e t y , convenience, comfort, audio and v i s u a l p r i -vacy, roof spaces, materials, views, storage, c i r c u l a t i o n . Housing Demonstra-tio n Projects -Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t . I I Guidelines for Multi-Family Housing Needs, P r i n c i p l e s and Recommendations for Medium and' High Density Housing for Families with Children C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department Municipal Sept/77 1. Site Selection/Neighbour-hood 2. Group Size Community Ident i t y / S o c i a l Ci t y of Vancouver 3. Mix 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. T e r r i t o r i a l i t y / P r i v a c y Children Open Space Services/Maintenance Circulation/access Unit Types and Interiors Table II Design Guideline Originating Organization Date Site Planning Central Mortgage and Handbook Housing Corporation 1966 Urban Family Department of Housing - Aug/75 Housing - Province of B r i t i s h Planning Columbia Guidelines Thompson, Berwick & Pratt A r c h i t e c t s , Engineers & Planners P r o v i n c i a l Table I I , con't. Subject Matter D i s t r i c t 1. Community Planning 2. Pedestrian-Vehicular Movement 3. Project Design 4. Location 5. Parking, Driveways and Walkways 6. Open Space and Landscaping 7. Project Amenity Areas and Yard Dimensions - detached and conventional multiple housing, horizontal multiple, apartments Proposals for housing sub-mitted ..for financing under the National Housing Act -anywhere i n Canada 1. Design Factors i n Housing Proposal C a l l Clusters Housing Program 2. Small Open Space Province of 3. Recreation Space B r i t i s h Columbi 4. Private Units 5. Management 6. Noise Control 7. Building Types -61-A GRAPHIC COMPARISON OF BUILDINGS DEVELOPED UNDER TRADITIONAL AND DISCRETIONARY ZONING SYSTEMS IN: KITSILANO THE WEST END FAIRVIEW SLOPES Features: 1. Height of building s h a l l not exceed 35-40 feet. 2. Setback from sidewalk - 20 f t . 3. Setback from lane - 25-35 f t . 4. Sideyards - 7 f t . 5. Double loaded corridor arrangement. 6. Linear open space - lacks privacy and u s e a b i l i t y . 7. Standardized building design TRADITIONAL ZONING KITSILANO Figure 2 Features: 1. Building at 45 degree angel to take advantage of sun and view. 2. Height and setbacks at the d i s -c r e t i o n of the Director of Plan-ning. Relaxations to achieve better o v e r a l l urban design. 3. Useable open spaces. 4. S i g n i f i c a n t building a r t i c u l a -tion and imaginative design. 5. A p o s i t i v e contribution to the immediate neighbourhood. DISCRETIONARY ZONING KITSILANO Figure 3 Features: 1. Prescribed height regulations. 2. Setbacks from sidewalk - not less than 15 f t . 3. Sideyards - 7, 10 or 15 f t . according to height. 4. Double loaded corridor arrange-ment . 5. Standardized building design. (Boxy, lacks i n d i v i d u a l i t y in units) TRADITIONAL ZONING WEST END Figure 4 Features: 1. Height of building - i n t e r -p r e t a t i v e requirement. 2. Setbacks and sideyards -i n t e r p r e t a t i v e with respect to design guidelines. 3. Imaginative design and b u i l d i n g a r t i c u l a t i o n . 4. Improved s o c i a l and physical ameni t i e s . 5. P o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n to s i t e and surrounding neighbourhood. DISCRETIONARY ZONING  WEST END Figure 5 F e a t u r e s : 1. P r e v i o u s z o n i n g - CRM 2 & CRM 3 ( C o m m e r c i a l / M u l t i p l e D w e l l i n g D i s t r i c t ) . 2. H e i g h t o f b u i l d i n g - n o t t o exceed two s t o r e y s p l u s a c e l l a r o r one s t o r e y p l u s a basement. 3. F r o n t y a r d s - n o t l e s s than t w e n t y - f o u r f e e t . 4 . S i d e y a r d s - n o t l e s s than 10 p e r c e n t o f the w i d t h o f the s i t e on each s i d e o f the b u i l d i n g ; p r o v i d e d t h a t the maximum w i d t h o f such s i d e y a r d n o t exceed f i v e f e e t . 5. Rear y a r d s - n o t be l e s s than t h i r t y - f i v e f e e t . 6. S t a n d a r d i z e d b u i l d i n g d e s i g n . 7. B u i l d i n g s n o t s e n s i t i v e t o t o p o g r a p h y o r v i e w s . 8. P r e v i o u s z o n i n g d e l e t e d i n f a v o u r o f a m o d i f i e d CRM s c h e d u l e based on p l a n n i n g p o l i c i e s and d e s i g n g u i d e l i n e s . TRADITIONAL ZONING -FAIRVIEW SLOPES F i g u r e 6 Features: 1. Height calculated from average b u i l d i n g grades - not to exceed 35 f t . However there are sev-e r a l exceptions, i e . sundecks, roof gardens & a r c h i t e c t u r a l appurtenances - at d i s c r e t i o n of Director of Planning. 2. Setbacks and sideyards not regu-lated in most cases. 3. High degree of building a r t i c u -l a t i o n . 4. Courtyard schemes. • 5. P o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n of buildings to s i t e s - views, topography and to neighbouring building. DISCRETIONARY ZONING FAIRVIEW SLOPES Figure 7 -68-the C i t y of Vancouver i s f i l e d at the Department of Permits and Licenses accompanied by three to six sets of plans depending on where the project w i l l be b u i l t . This application i s usually f i l e d by the architect on behalf of his c l i e n t although the developer himself, agents, contractors, engineers or owners can also f i l e the application. The information required for a completed development permit application includes scale drawings showing the s i t e plan, elevation, floor and roof plans. The plans must also d e t a i l yard sizes and setbacks, size and location of o f f - s t r e e t parking and loading spaces, access routes, landscape and grading information, building heights, uses, floor layouts, mechanical systems and the physical relationships to other developments. In addition to these drawings and a leg a l description of the l o t the applicant must provide detailed c a l c u l a t i o n of the floor space r a t i o . The applicant i s advised that information on the following concerns would p a r t i c u l a r l y apply to major development proposals and as applicable should be provided at the time of application: 1. An analysis of the ef f e c t of the proposed building on adjoining properties and streets in terms of sun, shade, shadow, wind changes and view corridors. 2. An a r c h i t e c t u r a l model to demonstrate the massing and appearance of the proposed development. 3. A statement of existing uses for any building being demolished or any change of use proposed. 4. A schedule of the size , and anticipated occupancy of a l l proposed dwelling units. 5 . The maximum or minimum (as applicable) number of parking spaces ALLOWED. 6. Representation by photograph or drawing of the r e l a -tionship of the proposed development to the surround-ing buildings and environment. Although i t i s not an o f f i c i a l requirement the applicant i s en-couraged to submit a written statement amplifying the drawings and also explaining the applicant's r e c o n c i l i a t i o n of the proposed -69-development with the applicable O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-law, Planning P o l i c i e s and Design g u i d e l i n e s . 8 This recommendation applies to Vancouver's Central Area (Downtown, West End, False Creek, Gastown, Chinatown and Central Broadway D i s t r i c t s ) Development Approval Process. The o r i g i n a l application i s referred by the Department of Permits and Licenses to the Development Permit Group where i t i s assigned to a p a r t i c u l a r Plan Checker. Copies of the applica-tion and plans are c i r c u l a t e d to Planning Department Study Area Groups, Area Planners, Citi z e n s Groups ( i f applicable) and the Engineering, Building and Social Planning Departments. The Plan Checker in processing the application may undertake a s i t e v i s i t , check the history ( i . e . previous uses, relevant legal decisions regarding the site ) , the s i t e and proposed develop-ment, carry out discussions with the applicant and confer with the other d i v i s i o n s and departments. The plan checker also obtains the advice of and makes recommendations to various panels, groups and committees which are a l l e n t i t l e d to evaluate the project in terms of i t s compliance with the relevant plans, p o l i c i e s and design guidelines and are given varying degrees of discretionary authority for carrying out such a review. If at this time the development permit submission has major problems a meeting i s set up by the plan checker with the a r c h i -tect and the appropriate s t a f f from the Planning Department and i f necessary from the Engineering of Social Planning department as well. The concerns about the project are discussed and the applicant usually responds by making the necessary design changes i f they believe that they w i l l r e s u l t in development approval. Upon receiving comments, revised drawings or no changes from the -70-DEVELOPMENT PERMIT GROUP A COPY OF APPLICATION CIRCULATED TO: -Planning Dept study area groups Area planning Various c i t i z e n s ' groups Engineering dept. Building dept. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION FILED. IN DEPT. OF PERMITS AND LICENCES & RECORDED IN REGISTRY LOCAL AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE ON CERTAIN ITEMS APPLICATION REFERRED TO D.P. GROUP AND A PLAN CHECKER ONE & TWO FAMILY OUTRIGHT USE APPLICATIONS ARE PROCESSED BY THE PERMITS AND LICENCES DEPARTMENT URBAN DESIGN PANEL ADVISE ON CERTAIN ITEMS FOR LATER CONSIDERATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLAN-NING PLAN CHECKER PROCESSES APPLICATION: s i t e v i s i t , check h i s t o r y , discus-sion with applicant, l i a i s o n with other d i v i s i o n s & departments and formulating a recommendation to the development permit advisory group CONDITIONAL USE ITEMS APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO D.P. BOARD ADVISORY PANEL WITH RECOMMENDA-TIONS REFUSED - I f ap p l i c a t i o n i s c l e a r l y i n v i o -l a t i o n of ap-p l i c a t i o n r e -quirements i e . i n s u f f i c i e n t drawings and information OUTRIGHT USES AND USES REQUIRING THE DISCRETION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLAN-NING PERMIT: ISSUED OR RE-FUSED WITH REASONS AFTER BEING CHECKED BY DEVELOP-MENT PERMITS GROUP COMMITTEE RECOMMEN-DATIONS CONSIDERED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DIRECTORS DECISION CONVEYED TO APPLICANT IF "PRIOR TO" CONDI-TIONS TO BE MET PERMIT: APPROVED, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, or REFUSED WITH REASONS Figure 8 -71-applicant the project i s further processed. It should be noted that the architect i s under no formal obligation to attend such preliminary discussions. The following i s a description of the roles, functions and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of these bodies. They have been organized into two groups; those that act in an advisory capacity only and those that may be c l a s s i f i e d as decision making. Advisory The Development Permit Advisory Panel - (Central Area) - The function of the Advisory Panel i s to act in an advisory capacity to the Development Permit Board with respect to Development Per-mit Applications which are required to be submitted to the Board. The Advisory Panel attends and participates in a l l meetings of the Board. The Panel consists of six persons appointed by City Council: Two on the advice of the development industry, two on the advice of the development professions and two from the general public. The i n i t i a l term of o f f i c e for one member of each of the three groups i s one year, the other member serves for two years. The Urban Design Panel - The duties of the Panel are to advise Council, the Director of Planning, or the Development Permit Board from time to time on the Urban Design of any proposed de-velopment or any substantial changes to any previously approved development after a development permit has been issued. In addition, the Panel may advise the City Council or any of i t s boards on any matter where urban design i s involved. For the purpose of the By-law, "urban design" includes the design and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of a l l physical components of the c i t y . The Panel's review also includes a l l c i v i c works such as bridges, roadworks, parks, b e a u t i f i c a t i o n projects, t r a n s i t systems, c i v i c -72-buildings, and design competitions prior to both the issuance of competition requirements and the subsequent awarding of contracts. It also gives impartial professional advice d i r e c t l y at the appro-priate l e v e l and at the appropriate time on any proposal or pol i c y a f f e c t i n g the community's physical environment. The panel a s s i s t s the Planning Department and Council in the formula-tion of design policy and c r i t e r i a . The Urban Design Panel i s composed of not less than eight members two of whom are the Director of Planning or his represen-tative and the City Building Inspector. The other six are appointed by Council: (a) three members of the Ar c h i t e c t u r a l Institute of B r i t i s h Columbia. (b) one member of the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. (c) a landscape a r c h i t e c t . • (d) the Chairman of the Vancouver City Planning Com-mission or an alternate named by him. A l l members of the Urban Design Panel other than the C i v i c o f f i c i a l s hold o f f i c e for two years subject to removal or replace-ment, at the dis c r e t i o n of Council."'"-'" The Urban Design Group - The Urban Design Group i s part of the Special Services Division of the City of Vancouver's Planning Department. It was formed in 1976 as an in-house consulting group and placed under the di r e c t i o n of an urban designer. The three planners and urban designer who compose the group a l l have had formal tr a i n i n g in architecture. The Urban Design Group's work program for 1977 included: 1. Design Consulting - assistance with l o c a l area planning and design guidelines. - design of be a u t i f i c a t i o n projects and park improvements. -73-- advice to temporary zoning consultant - p a r t i c i p a t i o n in or advice on special tasks in Department (e.g. Family Housing Guidelines: Major Streets Task Force; Children's Hospital Liason) 2. Urban Design Panel secretaryship 3. Development permit review 4. Urban design p o l i c y work. 1 2 Study Area Groups - Within the City of Vancouver Planning Department task forces of planners are occasionally set up to develop goals and formulate plans and p o l i c i e s for various special character areas of the c i t y . The task forces sometime include representatives from other appropriate departments such as Engineering and Social Planning. Recent examples of such task forces have been the Downtown Study Team, the Chinatown Planning Group and the Kingsway Task force. In devising o v e r a l l strategies and guidelines for future development these teams have advisory input into the review of projects proposed for their p a r t i c u l a r area. Area Planners - Under the Federally assisted Neighbourhood Im-provement Program various areas of Vancouver have been designated for assistance to carry out physical and s o c i a l improvements. An area planner i s assigned to the community in order to organize c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i d e n t i f y needs and objectives, determine the a l l o c a t i o n of f i n a n c i a l resources for the projects and to develop a plan for the community. An area planner also reviews and comments on any development proposed for the designated area for which he i s responsible. Decision - Making Bodies The Development Permit Board - (Central Area) - The duties and - 7 4 -functions of the Board are to receive and approve or refuse such Development Permit applications as may by by-law be pre-scribed to be brought before the Board. The Development Permit Board may relax any provision of the Zoning and Development By-law. In granting any relaxation the Board i s required to have regard to the intent of the By-law, the regulations and p o l i c i e s of any O f f i c i a l Development Plan and such other p o l i c i e s as Council may from time to time determine, including design guidelines. The Board consists of the following persons: The Director of Planning, the Director of Social Planning and the C i t y Engineer. The Chairman i s the Director of Planning. In considering a p p l i -cations the Board hears the applicant as well as any other person interested in the application, and before rendering i t s decision consults with and receives any submissions of the Advisory Panel. A l l decisions of the Board are delivered in public un-less the Board for good and s u f f i c i e n t cause otherwise d i r e c t s , and the Board must state the reason for i t s decision.-^ The Director of Planning - In dealing with application for de-velopment permits the Director of Planning may in every case and in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development By-law grant such permits either unconditionally, or subject to conditions, including a l i m i t a t i o n in time, or may refuse such permits. The Director of Planning may exercise his discretionary power with regard to the following provisions of the Zoning and Development By-law: The Director of Planning may relax the provision of the By-law where due to conditions peculiar either to the s i t e or to the proposed development, l i t e r a l enforce-ment would result in unnecessary hardship in any of the following cases: -75-a) alt e r a t i o n s or additions to existing buildings. b) erection of more than one p r i n c i p l e building on one s i t e or s t r u c t u r a l a l t e r a t i o n s to two or more p r i n c i p a l buildings existing on the same s i t e . c) required setbacks to o f f - s t r e e t parking areas. d) required screening on the boundary of a parking Notwithstanding the provisions of the Zoning and Development By-law or any other By-law and unless he receives a notice of objection from any member of the Development Permit Board, the Director of Planning may in his d i s c r e t i o n approve or disapprove applications for development permits relevant to buildings or uses for which the consent of the Development Permit Board would other-wise be required. In the exercise of such d i s c r e t i o n the Director of Planning may in every case grant such development permits either unconditionally or subject to conditions including a l i m i t a t i o n in time, or he may refuse such permits. The Director of Planning may not exercise such d i s c r e t i o n where in his opinion: (i) The development would have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the existing immediate environment. ( i i ) the development would create t r a f f i c implications that could a f f e c t the general environment. ( i i i ) the height or density of any proposed building would not be in keeping with the general building heights or density in the immediate environment. (iv) there may be possible s i g n i f i c a n t buildings of heritage merit on the s i t e or in the surrounding area that may be adversely affected by the develop-ment. (v) the design i s not of an acceptable standard and may adversely a f f e c t public amenity; in t h i s regard the Director of Planning may request advice from the Urban Design Panel. (vi) the development i s such that special public amenities could be considered for density bonus or other special advantages. e) f) area. minimum parking or loading requirements, exterior balconies (See appendix VII) -76-Before a development permit application i s considered by the Development Permit Board, the Development Permit Advisory Panel and the Director of Planning and Plan Checker considers the plans, information and comments from other d i v i s i o n s and departments and makes a recommendation to the Development Per-mit Advisory Group. This group consists of representatives from the various c i t y departments including Planning, Building, Engineering, Health and Social Planning. The application f a l l s into one of two groups - either an outright use or a conditional use. OUTRIGHT USE: These are permitted uses provided the development complies with the provisions (Outside Central of the Zoning and Development By-law. Area - False Creek, Fairview, parts of eg. a house in a RS-1 d i s t r i c t Kitsilano) an apartment in a RM-3 zone ( i f the project s a t i s f i e s the setbacks --front, back and side- and height, etc.) CONDITIONAL USE: These uses may be permitted subject to the regulations, and any other p o l i c i e s , Central Area design guidelines or conditions imposed by (Discretionary the Director of Planning or Development Zone) Permit Board. eg. FM-1 development in Fairview Slopes, West End, Downtown False Creek. If the project i s a conditional use, the recommendation of the Development Permit Advisory Group i s submitted to the Development Permit Board and i t s Component Advisory Panel (outlined e a r l i e r ) . The Board's recommendations are considered by the Director of Planning and the permit i s either approved, issued subject to conditions or refused with reasons. In the case of outright uses and uses requiring the dis c r e t i o n of the Director of Planning, the permit i s issued or refused with reasons after being checked by the Development Permit Advisory Group. -77-The Planning Department also operates a Preliminary Develop-ment Approval Process in the Central Area. This process i s recom-mended when the development proposal may be especially complicated or may have a special impact on the area. It i s also recommended for the applicant who might desire discussion and reaction before preparing completed drawings and information. However, the preliminary process requires substantially the same amount of drawings and information though they may be less detailed, and the application can take as long or even longer to process than a completed application. Discretionary Authority The concept of discretionary authority i s fundamental to the operation of the O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-law zoning system and i t s accompanying planning p o l i c i e s and design guide-l i n e s . In a l l four O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-laws for the Central Area of Vancouver i t i s stated that, "A s i g n i f i c a n t degree of f l e x i b i l i t y i s given to architects and others in the preparation of development proposals. A s i g n i f i c a n t degree of discretionary authority i s also given to those charged with the interpretation of the p o l i c i e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . " 1 5 With regard to the design guidelines i t i s further stated that, "the guidelines represent a quality control upon which to base design decisions and judgements. The guidelines prescribe the general c r i t e r i a for the preparation and approval of development proposals. Various municipal s t a f f and several o f f i c i a l c i v i c boards and panels including the Director of Planning, the Development Permit Board, and the Urban Design Panel may in their d i s c r e t i o n refuse or require modification to a Development Permit application for f a i l u r e to meet the standards of the guidelines in whole or in -78-p a r t . " 1 6 It i s necessary in order to f u l l y comprehend how design guide-li n e s function within Vancouver's Development Permit Approval Process to obtain a clearer perception of the discretionary authority concept. Kenneth Culp Davis states that d i s c r e t i o n i s present in any situation in which "the e f f e c t i v e l i m i t s on an o f f i c i a l ' s power leave him free to make a choice among pos-s i b l e courses of action."-^ Edwin F o l l i c k i d e n t i f i e s d i s c r e t i o n to be "an acceptable latitude of judgement based on professional experience and common sense in the solution of a controversy."-'-8 A general d e f i n i t i o n of discretion in the le g a l sense follows this approach: "Discretion i s the lat i t u d e of decision within which a court or judge decides questions a r i s i n g in a pa r t i c u l a r case not expressly controlled by fixed rules of law according to the circumstances and according to the judgement of the court or j u d g e . F r o m an administrative standpoint, d i s c r e t i o n may mean "an individualized application of administrative judgement which allows a variable response and solution to problems evolving from changing conditions. u A number of le g a l scholars have argued that discretionary authority has become essential to problem solving and decision-making in an increasingly complex society. "The dis c r e t i o n a v a i l -able to the administrative process has been a determinative element in granting f e l x i b i l i t y required for the solution of technical issues..of this i n d u s t r i a l era. Presently the i n t e r -dependence of modern society demands s t i l l newer techniques and a more rapid solutions to problems of magnitude emanating from a complex c u l t u r e . . . . F l e x i b i l i t y i s a requirement of the essence to p r a c t i c a l and meaningful regulation demanded of modern govern--79-ment. Discretion plays a v i t a l role in such adaptability."21 Applying these interpretations to Vancouver's Development Permit Approval Process in the Central Area and parts of K i t s i l a n o , i t can be seen that administrative authority has been enlarged based on more f l e x i b l e and discretionary means of development review. In an era of greater r e a l i z a t i o n of user requirements in building design as well as increased s e n s i t i v i t y to urban design i t became apparent that the development approval process had to be freed from the undue legalism of r i g i d zoning by-laws in order to provide freedom to adopt the f l e x i b i l i t y necessary for the solution of human and technical issues in a period of increasingly complex building procedures. Furthermore, the d i s c r e t i o n that i s now available to Planning Administrators allows for variable responses and solutions to problems emanating from the d i f f e r e n t conditions of each building s i t e in the C i t y of Vancouver. Nonet states that "the narrower the d i s c r e t i o n o f f i c i a l s enjoy in the implementation of policy, the fewer are the oppor-tu n i t i e s for interested parties to challenge and influence existing policies."22 However, with the substantial amount of discretion in Vancouver's revised Development Permit Review pro-cedures one may anticipate greater opportunities for dialogue and debate between the applicant and the administrator. With greater opportunities for a l l interested parties to challenge, discuss::their concerns and formulate p o l i c i e s there are the-o r e t i c a l l y increased p o s s i b i l i t i e s for the development of b u i l d -ings which are s a t i s f a c t o r y to everyone involved in the housing development process. In addition one may expect the eventual achievement of more e f f e c t i v e building solutions over those that -80-resulted from the very defined and l i m i t i n g by-law regulations where there were no opportunities for user involvement. Fundamental to the concept of discretionary authority i s that when i t i s accorded to an administrative agency i t must have guide-l i n e s and procedural safeguards." 2 3 This explains the role of design guidelines in the C i t y of Vancouver's discretionary Develop-ment Approval Process. Davis argues that "rather than guidelines or procedural safe-guards, i t i s administrative rule-making which i s the key to the proper confinement and control of d i s c r e t i o n . He i n s i s t s that agencies through rule making can often move from vague or absent statutory standards and then as experience and understanding develop, to guiding p r i n c i p l e s and f i n a l l y when the subject matter 2 4 permits to precise and detailed rules." Concomitantly with his proposal for enlarged rule-making, Davis urged openness as a means for structuring discretionary power. He saw openness as a natural enemy of a r b i t r a r i n e s s and c a l l e d for open plans, open policy statements and open findings and reasons in situations warranting informal discretionary action as well as in more formal realms of decision-making." 2 5 Davis believes that "proper structuring of discretion l i k e the U.S. c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e of checks and balances could p l u r a l i z e planning while at the same time f a c i l i t a t e control over the boundaries of power." 2 6 Before debating this rule making foundation for discretionary authority i t must be pointed out that the design guidelines that are currently used in the City of Vancouver do not represent a set of steadfast rules upon which discretionary authority i s derived but rather a set of guiding p r i n c i p l e s representative of - 8 1 -a consensus of those conversant with aesthetic, urban design and l i v e a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a for housing design. Rule making of course w i l l not eliminate d i s c r e t i o n . Wexler states that in law, leg a l rules do not eliminate the di s c r e t i o n of the judge who makes a leg a l decision. "If the men who make legal decisions do not make them on the basis of rules then we are af r a i d that they can only make them as our fantasy tyrants do, on the basis of e v i l and dishonest motives, biases, mad personal quirks and shere perversity. We are not confident that men can exercise i n t e l l i g e n t and honest personal d i s c r e t i o n , and therefore we see no way to make the subjective discretionary r e a l i t y of ? 7 decision making acceptable to the people i t governs." This fear i s evident in many of the responses of one pa r t i c u l a r group of architects that was interviewed for the purposes of this study. (See following chapter - Category I) Wexler argues that society clings to the myth of o b j e c t i v i t y associated with decisions based on rules while we dismiss d i s c r e -tionary authority as subjective and whimsical. "Because we i n s i s t on pretending that we use rules where we do not and cannot, we have not begun to formulate i n t e l l i g e n t guidelines for di s c r e -tionary decision-making, we have not a r t i c u l a t e d the p o l i c i e s behind our laws nor have we seen or come to grapple with the inconsistencies in those p o l i c i e s or the consequences of them. Because we i n s i s t that the men who make decisions are only applying rules, we have not addressed the question how to pick the proper men to administer discretionary guidelines or how to tr a i n them to do so. And most important, because we attempt to force what is in fact discretionary decision making into i n s t i t u t i o n s which assume that decisions are based on rules we have not devised -82-i n s t i t u t i o n s to make subjective, discretionary decision making an honest process, responsive to the tasks i t faces and respon-s i b l e to the people affected by i t . " 2 8 Viewed in l i g h t of Wexler's comments i t can be argued that the City of Vancouver's Discretionary Development Approval Process i s an exception since i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements such as t r a -d i t i o n a l zoning which was based on r i g i d l y adhered to rules was replaced with discretionary decision making based on O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-laws. Planning P o l i c i e s and Design Guidelines which evolved out of considerable academic and professional research, thought and debate. The process further acknowledges that the people administering discretionary guidelines are not simply applying rules but rather have been given a " s i g n i f i c a n t degree of discretionary authority to interpret plans, p o l i c i e s and guidelines in the review of development proposals." Rules are perceived by many people to possess several advan-tages over discretionary decision making and guidelines. How-ever, upon closer examination these advantages may be i l l u s o r y . One argument that i s put forth in favour of rules i s that they help avoid the i n j u s t i c e s of special treatment. Yet does this properly a l l a y fears of biased or dishonest o f f i c i a l s , and i n -consistent and unfair applications of the rules? If "rules are meant to be broken" di s c r e t i o n i s not eleminated nor i s special treatment ( f a i r or u n f a i r ) . As Wexler points out "discretionary decision-making must be even-handed, consistent, non-arbitrary and should lack bias in order to work p r o p e r l y . " 2 9 Of course there may be occasional abuses of discretionary authority just as there are abuses of rules. Yet the key difference between the two i s that the discretionary system i s both more open and more -83-challengeable. Rules are often j u s t i f i e d on the basis of depersonalizing authority thereby eliminating descriminatory special treatment. Yet the opposite end of the scale i s that "personal and v i s i b l e power and leadership decline supplanted by impersonal, anony-mous and automatic mechanisms of control and coordination. In area after area of both public and private l i f e , no single i d e n t i -f i a b l e o f f i c e or individual commands either the knowledge or the authority to make decisions. A search for the responsible party leads through an:, endless maze of committees, bureaus, o f f i c e s and anonymous b o d i e s . T h e maze of committees and panels in the City of Vancouver's Development Permit Approval Process have been outlined in this chapter and the expressions of d i s a t i s f a c t i o n with a l l the depersonalized, anonymous atmosphere at Vancouver's Planning Department are elaborated in the following chapter. It can be argued that the Discretionary Zoning system w i l l not provide greater personalization over the former t r a d i t i o n a l zoning process unless the architect/developer takes the i n i t a t i v e to meet with those who make the recommendations to the o f f i c i a l approving bodies. Nevertheless, the discretionary process the architect i s given i s a substantially higher degree of design freedom than i s the case in t r a d i t i o n a l zoning. In the Tradi-t i o n a l Zoning System the architect must submit a development permit application with l i t t l e i f any previous dialogue to an anonymous s t a f f committee that evaluates the proposal according to very r i g i d rules and regulations. While the architect must s t i l l follow the same o f f i c i a l development approval procedures under the discretionary system there are t h e o r e t i c a l l y greater opportunities for personalized dialogue at the i n i t i a l stages. -84-Another supposed advantage that a rule has over di s c r e t i o n i s that "when a rule works to .eliminate d i s c r e t i o n i t determines the solution to a problem in advance." 3 1- Yet the solution according to a rule may be of poor qua l i t y i f the rule i t s e l f i s unresponsive or insensi t i v e to the concerns the rule was intended to improve. In Vancouver previous zoning by-laws regulated the land use, height and density of buildings but did not deal with their a r c h i t e c t u r a l design nor how they related to their immediate environment. Thus, the s t a b i l i t y and order one may have associated with rules i s r e a l l y i l l u s o r y i f both the architects and planners believed the end product was unsat-i s f a c t o r y from aesthetic, urban design and l i v e a b i l i t y stand-points. If s t a b i l i t y , order and successful solutions are to be found i t can be argued that they are to be found in the disc r e -tionary process and not in rules. Summary A comparison between t r a d i t i o n a l zoning and development control which preceded the introduction of design guidelines and the discretionary zoning system of which the guidelines are an essential component revealed that the l a t t e r has a s i g n i f i c a n t l y lesser degree of s p e c i f i c design regulation. The discretionary system allows for substantial interpretation, f l e x i b i l i t y and c r e a t i v i t y whereas t r a d i t i o n a l zoning consists of r i g i d rules which are subject to l i t t l e interpretation and which s i g n i f i c a n t l y hinder design p o s s i b i l i t i e s . The C i t y of Vancouver's Development Permit Review Process was examined in recognition that design guidelines represent a small part of a much larger process. The advisory and decision-making -85-groups, panels and committees which have varying degrees of discretionary authority were discussed. The chapter concluded with an analysis of the relevant l i t e r a t u r e on Administrative Discretionary Authority. The l i t e r a t u r e suggests that d i s c r e t i o n has become essential to achieve the f l e x i b i l i t y needed to solve the increasingly complex problems of the current technological age. On closer examination many of the supposed advantages of rules over d i s c r e t i o n may in practice be quite i l l u s o r y . -86-CHAPTER V  Footnotes 1. By-Law No. 4891, "West End O f f i c i a l Development Plans By-Law" (a part of the City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-Law, Vancouver, B.C., August, 1975), p. 423 2. K i t s i l a n o Design Guidelines Apartment Areas (RM3-B and RM3-A1, Commercial Areas (C-2B), City of Vancouver Planning Department, July 12, 1977), p. 1 3. By-Law No. 4912, "Downtown Zoning O f f i c i a l Development Plan", (a part of the City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-Law, Vancouver, B.C., Nov. 1975), p. 3 4. By-Law No. 4891, p. 423 5. Ibid, p. 423 6. By-Law No. 4812, "False Creek O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-Law", (a part of the City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-Law, Vancouver, B.C., November, 1974), p. 305 7. Downtown Guidelines (11) Design Guidelines Cit y of Vancouver Planning Dept., Dept. 1975), p . l . 8. Development Permit Applications Central Area, (City of Van-couver Planning Department, February, 1976) , brochure 9. Zoning Department. City of Vancouver Planning Department, 1976 10. By-Law No. 4876 "Development Permit Board and Development Permit Advisory Panel", (a part of the City of Vancouver  Zoning and Development By-Law, Vancouver, B.C., Sept., 1975), p. 436 11. By-Law No. 4722, "Urban Design Panel", (a part of the City  of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-Law, Vancouver, B.C. October, 1976), pp. 447-9 12. French, T., Urban Design Work Programme, City of Vancouver Planning Department, 1977. 13. By-Law No. 4876, p. 435-36 14. By-Law No. 3575, City of Vancouver Zoning and Development By-Law, (Vancouver, Oct., 1976), pp. 7-10 15. By-Law No. 4891, p. 423 16. Downtown Guidelines, p. 1 17. Davis, Kenneth Culp, "Confuring, Structuring, and Checking Administrative Descretion, Victor G. Rosenblum, In Adminis-t r a t i v e Discretion Problems of Decision-Making by Governmental Agencies. Clark C. Hourghurst (ed). (Oceana Publications Inc., Dobbs Terry, New York 1974), p. -87-18. F o l l i c h , Edwin Duane, "The Element of Discretion Inherent in Administrative Ajudication. (A Thesis submitted for the Degree of J u r i s Doctor. Dept. of Post-Graduate Study Blackstone School of Law, August, 1967), p. 108 19. Ibid., p. 2 20. Ibid., pp.2-3 21. Ibid., p. 21 22. Nonet, P h i l l i p e , Administrative Justice (Advocacy and Change in a Government Agency, Russell Gage Foundation, New York, 1969) p. 5 23. F o l l i c k , Op. C i t . , pp. 40-41 24. Davis, Op. C i t . , pp. 49-51 25. Ibid., p. 51 26. Ibid., p. 61 27. Wexler, Discretionary Authority (Unpublished thesis. Univer-s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Law Library, Vancouver, B.C.) , p. 6 28. Ibid., P- 8-9 29. Ibid., P- 66 30. Ibid., P. 82-83 31. Ibid., P- 74 -88-CHAPTER VI Interviews with Architects and Planners This chapter describes personal interviews conducted with various architects and planners d i r e c t l y involved with or affected by design guidelines and the City of Vancouver's Develop-ment Permit Review Process. A l l of the architects interviewed have had extensive involvement in housing design in the City of Vancouver. Since the number of architects with this kind of experience comprise a s u r p r i s i n g l y small segment of the profession i t i s f e l t that the representative sampling presented in this chapter i s quite comprehensive. Many of the architects that were interviewed were also chosen because they had been in attendance at a workshop on design guidelines that was held at the City of Vancouver Planning Department in the Summer of 1977. The planners who were interviewed are employed by the Vancouver Planning Department and are a c t i v e l y involved in the review of housing designs in the West End and Fairview Slope areas of the c i t y . In addition one of the planners was the former secretary to the urban design panel. In order to obtain a reasonably good cross-section of opin-ions and responses four basic categories of respondents were decided upon. These included: Category I - Architects who had had developments re-jected or returned for extensive design revisions in the l a s t twelve months for a f a i l u r e to meet the intent and s p i r i t of the relevant design guidelines. Category II - Architects who have had substantial i n -volvement in the research and development of design guidelines. -89-Category III - Architects who are currently very active in the design of housing in the West End r e s i d e n t i a l area of Vancouver. Category IV - Three Planners representing the views of the City of Vancouver Planning Department. Each of the three respondents in the four categories was asked a standard series of questions under three general heading. The l e t t e r s of the alphabet are used to i d e n t i f y the respective res-pondent. Design Guidelines; In P r i n c i p l e In the f i r s t question the respondents were asked whether they were in favour of design guidelines in p r i n c i p l e and to state their reasons. Category I - (Rejected Architects) A. "Design guidelines are set up by highly i d e a l i s t i c people, who don't understand the implication of the guidelines on the fact. The guidelines provide such high standards that they negate most of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s . You cannot provide the ideals within the economic framework that we have. With land prices fixed by the amount of square footage you can build on i t , the net result i s that the o r i g i n a l ideal of sunshine, views and open space i s t o t a l l y contradictory. You can't build to those densities without building very expen-sive units." B. "Guidelines per se are reasonable i f they are well thought out and f l e x i b l e . The danger occurs when the guideline i s used by an bureaucracy for i t then becomes rules and regu-l a t i o n s . " C. "Guidelines are r e a l l y unnecessary and ex i s t e s s e n t i a l l y for those individuals in planning departments who are removed from and b a s i c a l l y do not understand the design process." Category II - (Research Architects) A. Indicated that he was in favour of design guidelines in p r i n -c i p l e but cautioned that "the set of guidelines you put in the hands of the architect to generate a scheme cannot be the same thing as the guidelines that are used to regulate land development or evaluate what the architect has done." -90-B. Responded that he was in favour of guidelines purely for communication purposes. "To communicate that one group or a number of groups in society have concerns regarding a s p e c i f i c area or s i t e in the c i t y . If I'm building a building on any street in Vancouver I have to take into account what has gone on before, the natural environment, sunlight and a l l kinds of things and very often while you or I might be capable of doing so others may not take into account the concerns of nei-ghbours. The design guidelines communicate these concerns to builders, architects and developers." C. Responded that he was in favour of design guidelines in p r i n -c i p l e with the s t i p u l a t i o n that they should be s i t e s p e c i f i c and evolving out of a consultative process between the ar c h i -tect and municipal planner. Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) A. Indicated that he was in favour of design guidelines in p r i n -c i p l e . "They are r e a l l y a c o l l e c t i o n of motherhood statements and are in most cases too general to be r e s t r i c t i v e . They're a guidance to get you through the process to a successful con-clusion. Guidelines are a foundation for design - building upon this foundation requires dialogue, i e . you must talk a-bout them at the beginning to understand what everyone thinks the guidelines mean." B. "If you define design guidelines as another set of c r i t e r i a they could be i f handled properly a good thing. Gee i t would be great to be able to design without any r e s t r i c t i o n s but I suppose what design i s a l l about i s responding to c r i t e r i a and guidelines. The concept i s a good thing but what in theory i s a good thing becomes in practice a problem....Guidelines make i t easier for decision-making when you're trying to establish a standard. I guess there had to be a problem to begin with. There wouldn't be design guidelines unless people f e l t the design they were seeing or the design they were antic i p a t i n g was going to be detrimental in some way." C. Believed the idea of design guidelines was okay and f e l t that i t was probably better to have guidelines as opposed to s p e c i f i c zoning envelopes or empirical formulas for doing a r c h i t e c t u r a l design. Category IV - (Planners) A. "Most guidelines r e f l e c t basic design philosophies so i t s hard to argue with them since there i s basic agreement as to what those philosophies should be. What does seem to be a problem i s whether our current guidelines are s p e c i f i c enough to achieve certain environmental and urban design objectives." B. "Guidelines are a safeguard against bad design. While i t i s true that good architects are not depending on them they are s t i l l necessary because there are good and bad architects just as there are good and bad doctors or lawyers." -91-C. "Compared to t r a d i t i o n a l zoning I would say that guidelines and discretionary or incentive zoning represent a substantial improvement in the building development process. I f e e l that buildings developed under our current system relate much better o v e r a l l to their surrounding neighbourhoods." The second question consisted of three parts and asked the respondents whether they believed there was an educational value in design guidelines for i) students of architecture and planning, i i ) p r a c t i c i n g a r c h i t e c t s . Part i i i ) asked the respondents..if they f e l t the City of Vancouver Planning Department should educate architects and developers to the c i t y ' s concerns for housing through the use of tools such as design guidelines. Category I - (Rejected Architects) A. (i) "The design guidelines are useful to a student as an exer-cise of ideals around th e o r e t i c a l constructs but they are use-less in the real world." ( i i ) "No." ( i i i ) " D e f i n i t e l y not. The planning department operates on the basis of misguided ideals and they are stopping me from what I want to do. When the architect uses his seal the public should expect to be protected. It i s an indication of his professional a b i l i t i e s and expertise." B. This respondent believed that i t was useful for architects to have a set of guidelines as a mental c h e c k l i s t and for students to introduce them to important design concerns in housing but did not support the idea that i t was the responsi-b i l i t y of the planning department to be the educator of ar c h i -tects and developers. C. (i) "The design guidelines in s t r u c t the student in the rules of the game - the game i s how you go about getting a develop-ment through the c i t y h a l l bureaucracy." This respondent an-swered negatively to parts ( i i ) and ( i i i ) of this question. Category II - (Research Architects) A. This respondent believes there i s a strong educational com-ponent in guidelines for students and pr a c t i t i o n e r s but also believed i t was applicable for developers, mortgagors, f i -nanciers and users. ( i i i ) Indicated he was supportive of the planning departments role of educator and stated that "a planners only role may be as an educator." B. "Education requires communication and the guidelines are pieces of information, pieces of our culture being communicated to other people. Someone has to be doing the educating. Archi-tects (students and practitioners) are just one group that needs to be educated in the whole question. As i t turns out -92-in Vancouver, the planning department probably best serves this purpose." C. Responded in the affirmative to parts (i) and ( i i ) and be-lieved a l l these associated with housing should have a copy of Alexander's Pattern Language. "The ar c h i t e c t has to be jarred away from his c l i e n t getting, bookkeeping and adminis-t r a t i v e roles back into what architecture i s a l l about." The respondent preferred that the education should be s e l f -directed or through the professional i n s t i t u t e . Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) A. The respondent answered af f i r m a t i v e l y to parts (i) and ( i i ) . "Guidelines are what our training i s a l l about and maybe we should have learned i t but i t s l i k e anything else - you soon forget and you need to be reminded. To me i t s a good check-l i s t , i e . have you thought about these things, can you pro-duce a design which better responds to these concerns. I view them as a design tool - a reminder to what you should be thinking about. ( i i i ) The c i t y has r i g h t l y or wrongly t r i e d to l i s t a set of p r i o r i t i e s for each p a r t i c u l a r zone but their tools for education are in many ways too broad to be e f f e c t i v e . Education i s fine so long as there i s a two-way dialogue between the planning department and our-selves . " B. "There i s a d e f i n i t e educational value.... that's why I'm in favour of them. They should be used as a tool for education and as far as I'm concerned there i s nobody that i s above that. The people that object to the guidelines are the people that f e e l they've been held back by the guidelines. It's not true. Their best value i s their education value. Once a guy comes up with his idea a l l the negotiation doesn't change the building that much. In fact the best time to get input is at this stage. The c i t y has more impact through the guide-li n e s than in a l l the panels, committees, public meetings and on and on and on. The c i t y can get in before the architect has done anything on the project and this i s the best time to make their p i t c h . After that i t i s up to the architect to interpret the guidelines and communicate his idea to the c i t y . It's the function of each group in the process to com-municate to a l l the other groups what their concerns, desires and values are and therefore not only should planning departments issue guidelines about what their concerns are but a r c h i -tects should issue their own guidelines about their concerns to the planning departments." C. "Guidelines are useful as a f i l e of information for students, young architects or old architects too set in their way." The respondent was not in favour of the planning department's role as the educator. Category IV - (Planners) A l l three respondents saw an educational component in design guidelines for both students and p r a c t i t i o n e r s . With regard -93-to whether they thought the planning department should be the educator, a l l respondents answered in the affirmative although two of the respondents preferred to think of the planning depart-ment as a communicator of ideas and p o l i c i e s rather than an educator of architects and developers. The t h i r d question asked the respondents to i d e n t i f y those aspects of design guidelines to which they objected. Category I - (Rejected Architects) A. "What we need and what we have are t o t a l l y contradictory. We need a set of minimums not maximums." B. "There are too many personal, whimsical judgements both with-in the guidelines and in their application. Everything be-comes a judgement c a l l . Who defines what constitutes p r i -vacy for example?" C. "I am not in favour of guidelines altogether. The guidelines are a set of attitudes, b e l i e f s and ideals and may bare l i t t l e r e l a t i o n to an individual project." Category II - (Research Architects) A. "Most design guidelines available cannot be used in a generic sense. They are not e x p l i c i t enough and they are no planning paradigm for marketing a good environment." B. "The bigger problem than the guidelines themselves i s the lack of continuity in the review process. We have to work exceptionally hard to get projects completed and i t doesn't do us one b i t of good to have the person we're dealing with taking every Friday or Monday o f f and providing inconsistent planning department r e p l i e s . " C. "The bureaucrats who administer the guidelines are not ne-ce s s a r i l y conversant with the design process nor do they always follow the interpretive s p i r i t of the guidelines them-selves." Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) A. "Different individuals w i l l put d i f f e r e n t weight on the con^ tent of the guidelines when reviewing projects. I r e a l l y get annoyed when they l e t something through in a d i s c r e t i o n -ary zone that i s n ' t up to snuff." B. "In some cases guidelines are very l i m i t i n g ; i e . you have to do this and you have to do that. Guidelines must be intent statements rather than rules." -94-C. "The intent of the guidelines springs from the right ideas and motives but I don't know that i t i s achievable. It tends to become one more set of gauges for measuring qua l i t y and i f you try to regulate quality you can't do i t . The whole aesthetic realm of architecture and planning i s so d i f f i c u l t , to regulate." Category IV - (Planners) A. "To date the guidelines address some physical and s o c i a l concerns but f a i l to a large extent in terms of r e l a t i n g each project to i t s neighbourhood. In the West End for ex-ample, the character area guidelines should be further de-veloped and every project considered must make a positive contribution to the West End neighbourhood." B. "We would l i k e to be as consistent as possible in the use of design guidelines which are interpretive statements. Most of our problems occur when there i s inconsistency." C. This respondent f e l t there were too many guidelines with i n s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n on how they relate to each other as well as how they should be used. Design Guidelines and A r c h i t e c t u r a l Practice The fourth question asked the respondents whether they f e l t i t was possible to achieve a successful combination of socio - r l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s as expressed in conceptual design guidelines with the a r c h i t e c t u r a l task of creating a building form. Category I - (Rejected Architects) A. "Beautiful buildings and environments are not the result of s o c i o l o g i c a l design guidelines but rather, money. From a s o c i a l standpoint anyone can see i t i s much more desirable and much easier to design at twenty-three units per acre than f o r t y - f i v e but i t i s very expensive to be able to do t h i s . " B. "Any s o c i o l o g i c a l study i s biased to a degree by the person who produced i t . It i s a c o l l e c t i o n of his values and a t t i -tudes. Soc i o l o g i c a l studies and design guidelines in order to operate successfully in design must be in a permanent state of change - the studies of a year ago are already ob-solete." C. This respondent did not support or see the need for socio-l o g i c a l input into the design process. Category II - (Research Architects) A. "Ultimately those who design must be aware of parts of the environment. The question i s how they become more aware. Some individuals put as much e f f o r t into not becoming aware -95-as they could in becoming aware." B. "One hundred years ago we moved away from a more natural means of putting buildings up. We moved into a whole new realm of building, planning and design where buildings be-came so specialized, so complex - high-rise buildings, large buildings that the owner couldn't build i t himself - he had to hire an a r c h i t e c t , who in turn hired engineers for acous-t i c s and a l l kinds of things. The whole process of putting up a building was removed from the individual's a b i l i t y and as a r e s u l t a large portion of society t o t a l l y forgot how to do this - in other words, the c u l t u r a l , almost i n s t i n c t u a l ways of building shelter - you s t i l l see i t in A f r i c a where the same form keeps coming out using the same materials -they know what to do. In Greek v i l l a g e s you see very compli-cated variations of the same idea. Egyptian houses b u i l t -everyone knows how to build a doorway or the steps or the l e n t i l over the door should be l i k e this when they build a house; they don't need someone else to draw them some plans. We've forgotton that whole thing and have gotten into the game of very super complex buildings. What's going on with guidelines is purely an education process bringing us back to the point where these things are more c u l t u r a l l y in us so as an a r c h i -tect we are taking these things into consideration. I think guidelines are helping in this area." C. "Architects have tended to care more about form, image and s i t i n g than l i v e a b i l i t y concerns. Design tools such as Alexander's Pattern Language help the architect account for these concerns without comprimising to any great extent on the o v e r a l l form." Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) A. Respondent 'A' believes the process i s possible but that in the consideration of various p o s s i b i l i t i e s i t i s sometimes hard to convince the developer and a l l the trades that work with him your concepts and objectives. "It's hard to change certain images - we've been building l i t t l e boxes in t r a -d i t i o n a l zones for a long time now." B. "We f e e l that the d e f i n i t i o n of architecture i s an envelope for human a c t i v i t y and that human a c t i v i t y or the behavioural setting which i s made up of an i n d i v i d u a l a c t i v i t y environ-ment i s what defines and generates a r c h i t e c t u r a l form - so the form i s the r e s u l t of s a t i s f y i n g the a c t i v i t y patterns and values of people. We are not form conscious from the point of view of trying to create a p a r t i c u l a r form and put-ting the function within i t . The problem has been we've s a t i s f i e d the behavioural questions, the user desires and the form I don't l i k e but the project i s very successful." C. "I believe the creative genius of the i n d i v i d u a l surpasses any team approach using s o c i o l o g i s t s , psychologists or what have you - the more people involved in the process the more i t becomes a team approach. The only way I would support the concept i s when the program i s so complex that i t re--96-quires more d i s c i p l i n e s than one individual i s capable of possessing. My experience i s that most team solutions do not exceed single solutions in terms of q u a l i t y . " Category IV - (Planners) A. "We have poor quality architecture and we have overbuilt. Guidelines communicate a philosophy which w i l l help every-one produce better building forms from a user and environ-mental point of view." B. "Guidelines help convey to the architect that form in addi-tion to meeting certain aesthetic c r i t e r i a must also account for privacy, views, open space, and other concerns which con-tribute to the l i v e a b i l i t y of the housing. The guidelines w i l l allow certain tradeoffs to be made in achieving the f i n a l form." C. "Any architect creating a form should consider privacy, ter-r i t o r i a l i t y , open space, and other l i v e a b i l i t y concerns. These are the things that are r e a l l y the basis of any design. A f t e r a l l , what i s the building for - i t s r e a l l y for human occupancy and human a c t i v i t y . The guidelines i d e n t i f y fun-damental design p r i n c i p l e s . " In question fiv e the respondents were asked whether they f e l t guidelines in any way hindered the c r e a t i v i t y of the a r c h i -tect. Category I - (Rejected Architects) A. "If you were to s i t down and design a car that would be a v a i l -able to everyone in the world i t would not be a c a d i l l a c . It would be a Honda. The people writing these guidelines are t e l l i n g us to design C a d i l l a c s i n f e r i n g that we don't know how to design C a d i l l a c s , that we don't have the a b i l i t y to design them. But were b u i l d i n g Hondas because this i s whats f e a s i b l e economically and this i s what the planning depart-ment f a i l s to understand." B. "There i s not one thing in these guidelines that a good sensi-tive or even an average sensitive architect doesn't think about. He's been trained to ask the same kinds of questions that are asked for example in the G.V.R.D. Checklist." C. "If guidelines have been set up to prevent poor architecture is this r e a l l y f a i r to those individuals who are creative, responsible and competent. I prefer to think the profession and the marketplace weed out incompetence. Why c r u c i f y an entire profession because of the i n a b i l i t y of a few." Category II - (Research Architects) A. "People who are r e a l l y sensitive don't require guidelines but they-are perhaps necessary to prevent the worst cases of a r c h i --97-tecture. The r e a l l y important question i s whether you can l e g i s l a t e goodness. You can't dp i t . What i s i t ? " B. "I've sat on the Development Permit Board and haven't yet seen a single project that has come in where a l l the guide-li n e s and elements not even in the guidelines have been con-sidered by even the best a r c h i t e c t . I think there i s too much emphasis placed on the e l i t i s m of the architect knowing i t a l l and putting i t a l l together. I haven't yet seen a project that couldn't be improved. We should at least have a set of guidelines to act as a c h e c k l i s t to make sure we are thinking about the right things. If the a r c h i t e c t can grasp what others are saying and synthesize i t into the other things he's doing on the s i t e you end up with a better b u i l d -ing . " C. "Those who claim l i m i t s on c r e a t i v i t y have a false confidence. They are assuming one i s able to retain experiences and know-ledge about needs within themselves - concerns that are gath-ered over the years - but i t i s questionable whether i t i s always possible to p u l l them a l l together into one solution." Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) A. "The guidelines are too general to be r e s t r i c t i v e . C r e a t i v i t y i s often more dependent on what the c l i e n t wants, what type of zoning you have and the i n d i v i d u a l a b i l i t y of the architect than on any set of design guidelines." B. "We have t r i e d to look at guidelines in a p o s i t i v e manner and not in a l i m i t i n g way. There are times when you get extremely frustrated e s p e c i a l l y when you f e e l you are complying with the intent of the guidelines. That's the key thing, the i n -tent, not the actual guidelines. The negative i s i f they're taken hard and fast and i f they are unable to interpret, i f the planning administrator doesn't r e a l i z e the intent and i s just following by the book, i t can drive you up the wall. A guideline that says you have so many feet distance from a l i v i n g room window i s really.saying that you've got to have l i g h t and a i r in the room, you hav.e to have privacy, i n t e r -relationships between i n t e r i o r and exterior - that's the i n -tent, whether i t i s forty-nine or fifty-two feet doesn't mean anything. I think there i s a group of architects who design as well or even better without the guidelines but that i s a select group. A l o t of buildings are not designed by a r c h i -tects and thats part of the problem. There are people r e a l l y incompetent from a design point of view." C. "Guidelines are unnecessary to competent architects and quite often get in the way of the design process. If an architect in the creative process i s responding to a s i t e and a s p e c i f i c program he i s going to be very sensitive to the same kinds of things the guidelines are trying to achieve." Category IV - (Planners) A. "Guidelines are not steadfast rules. In fact on a number of -98-occasions we can get a solution that i s f a i r l y contradictory to the guidelines but can s t i l l turn out to be a pretty good design. As planners we cannot dictate the ideal solutions to the a r c h i t e c t s . " B. "Guidelines provide us with a set of c r i t e r i a to evaluate i n -dividual projects. Within that set of c r i t e r i a every oppor-tunity i s given to the architect to meet the objectives as c r e a t i v e l y as possible." C. "The good architects probably don't need the guidelines -they are creative and s e n s i t i v e . I don't believe guidelines hinder c r e a t i v i t y - what they try to do i s to get the a r c h i -tect thinking about s i t e planning and urban design, how to protect the l i v e a b i l i t y of neighbouring buildings, prevent-ing blockage of views, etc. Too often the architect does not look any further than his own p a r t i c u l a r s i t e and what his c l i e n t wants." The sixth question asked the respondents to state whether they f e l t design guidelines have encouraged good architecture from the design profession. Category I - (Rejected Architects) The three respondents in this category did not f e e l that the guidelines encouraged good architecture from the profession. One respondent thought that design guidelines encouraged safe, standardized architecture but not necessarily good architecture. Category II - (Research Architects) Two of the respondents in this category believe that guidelines do encourage good architecture from the design profession. One respondent f e l t that the question of creating better design i s t o t a l l y independent of the development control process. "Better design cannot be dealt with in the public sphere. Most guidelines are not e x p l i c i t enough to deal with parts of the environment at a l e v e l necessary for generating design." Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) Two of the .'.respondents in Category III supported the idea that guidelines encourage good architecture from the design profession. -99-One respondent stated that "good buildings and good communities were being produced long before the emergence of the guidelines. The quality of l i f e and the q u a l i t y of housing in a community i s not just a factor of the guidelines. There are many other con-siderations." Category IV - (Planners) A. "Guidelines provide us with a set of p r i n c i p l e s to judge an ind i v i d u a l development permit application and we can t e l l quite e a s i l y whether the architect has given us a box or a good design. If there are elements of both, the guidelines s t i l l provide a basis for discussion. I don't believe that the guidelines are s u f f i c i e n t l y s p e c i f i c to allow any a r c h i -tect to design a good building." B. "Development Permits that have been rejected for a f a i l u r e to meet the intent of the guidelines come back with what i s usually a much better project." C. "Guidelines are not mandatory but the architects who are trying to meet as many of the guidelines as i s possible have submitted on several occasions, some super schemes." The seventh question asked the respondents whether they f e l t design guidelines operate as a set of standards, defining solu-tions and thereby resulting in mundane architecture. Category I - (Rejected Architects) A. "yes, they do operate as standards. To give you an example a project that was being developed with Federal Government assistance was recently turned down due to a f a i u l r e to comply with C.M.H.C. design guidelines. The architect and developers secured other means of financing and the project recently re-ceived a housing design award. Does this answer your question?" B. "If i t s too costly and impractical to f i g h t a unique project through the process then invariably one resorts back to basic compliance with the minimums stated in the guidelines. These minimums lead to minimum mundane designs." C. "Guidelines do not represent a posit i v e approach to design. If a s t i f f i n f l e x i b l e attitude i s adopted by the planners then a standardized form usually r e s u l t s . " Category II - (Reserach Architects) A. "If the guidelines are applied over and over with r e l a t i v e l y similar expectations then they are r e a l l y standards rather than guidelines." -100-B. "The guidelines are stimulating c r e a t i v i t y because they are forcing people to ask themselves whether they are r e a l l y s a t i s f y i n g certain items and considerations. In that process I have noticed that they c e r t a i n l y stimulate the mundane" solutions to add some qu a l i t y . I've seen a l o t of architects go.'away disgruntled and come back with a better solution and a l l of this happened because they've been pressed a l i t t l e closer to the wall and to their own leve l s of a b i l i t y . " C. "If the guidelines are taken p o s i t i v e l y and given a wide range of interpretation by administrators then the end prod-uct w i l l not have to be mundane." Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) A. "Guidelines, when they become quite s p e c i f i c w i l l then regu-late and r e s t r i c t design p o s s i b i l i t i e s . As they stand guide-li n e s are not by-laws and allow for innovative solutions." B. "One of the purposes of design guidelines i s to establish a l l those c r i t e r i a - a l o t of them are motherhood issues -user need and aesthetic values. I think the intent i s okay given the right attitude the resu l t does not have to be mun-dane and standardized. The thing you have to understand is that a guideline; i s not a by-law, there i s some room for i n t e r -pretation and negotiation - i t s not a hard and fast rule. There are those people who are better at communicating what they want to do, better at innovation and change. We've t r i e d to take the guidelines one step further and use them as generating something new, something a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t . " C. "While some might argue that guidelines prevent the worst things from happening they don't necessarily create the best architecture either." Category IV - (Planners) A. "No, not at a l l . Our reasons for developing design guidelines was to achieve higher quality design and better solutions to design problems over the mediocre boxes that exist in areas l i k e the West End." B. "The guidelines are for reference and they are quite f l e x i b l e . We f e e l the solutions are subst a n t i a l l y less mundane since we started using guidelines." C. "I wouldn't say so. With discretionary zoning there are hard-ly any r e s t r i c t i o n s as compared to t r a d i t i o n a l zoning where you have spe c i f i e d setbacks, sideyards, etc. In d i s c r e t i o n -ary zoning there may not be any height or building envelope r e s t r i c t i o n s . In t r a d i t i o n a l zones, the arc h i t e c t works backwards. He i s given a fixed envelope and t r i e s to f i t his building into i t . Then the resu l t i s very often mun-dane. With discretionary zoning and design guidelines we are working on the basis of a d i f f e r e n t premise - how do you best relate a building to i t s environment and users?" -101-Design Guidelines: The Process The eighth question asked the respondents to evaluate the current use of design guidelines within the C i t y of Van-couver's Development Approval Process. Category I - (Rejected Architects) A. "The way guidelines are used in Vancouver i t i s impossible to design a project that complies with a l l the p r i n c i p l e s . If we were to give the project to the people in the h a l l , t e l l them what the budget i s , what the c l i e n t wants and what the density has to be in order for the project to be an economical preposition they wouldn't be able to conform to their own guidelines." B. "When guidelines go into p r i n t they become i n f l e x i b l e in their application. They can be as i r r e f u t a b l e as the pre-vious zoning requirements especially i f they're applied by' a person who i s not equally q u a l i f i e d or s k i l l e d . " C. This respondent stated that he f e l t design guidelines have unnecessarily delayed and complicated the development appro-val process. Category II -•(Research•Architects) A. "Guidelines are pieces of information and part of a context. They are d i s t r i b u t e d by somebody, they are interpreted by somebody, they are evaluated by somebody and they are acted upon by somebody. But they are only a part of the process. In Vancouver's Development Permit process inherently guide-li n e s w i l l be in c o n f l i c t and a means of resolving that con-f l i c t , or coming to some agreement must be developed. The planning department developes some broad encompassing goals and the methods to achieve those goals are suspect. The im-plementation suffers as the guidelines don't seem to be work-ing. The problem may then be the ways people respond to the guidelines and this can result from the process i t s e l f . If the process i s perceived to be wrong then the guidelines w i l l be seen this way also. The evaluating i s often done at a l e v e l that i s too far removed from the design process." B. "One wonders how decisions are made on what are the relevant guidelines. Are a l l the guidelines necessary for a p a r t i c u -lar s i t e ? Do we need more guidelines? In certain instances the impression received i s that someone at c i t y h a l l has the deffihuit'-ive book'of guidelines that have been passed on down through the years and i s applying them to every project." C. "The o f f i c i a l s and the guidelines they produce are in many cases too late into the game to be e f f e c t i v e and the guide--102-li n e s do not s p e c i f i c a l l y relate well enough to each s i t e which i s unique. Another problem i s that the people who draw up the guidelines usually don't have a hand in adminis-tering them." Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) A. "If we could only get the q u a l i f i e d people from the urban design group, for example, or the director of planning i n -volved from the very beginning we'd be able to save a great deal of time and expense. Why must the unqualified people waste time assessing projects and interpreting the guidelines when the design i s eventually evaluated by the people who are q u a l i f i e d . " B. "Once a planning department gets over one guy there's a problem in interpretation. You see they've gotten together and said maybe we should have the guidelines so we can a l l follow the rules. The guidelines make i t easier for decision-making and when you're job depends on i t you l i k e to avoid making i t . There are times when you get frustrated, especial-l y when you are complying with the intent of the guidelines-. If they're taken hard and fast by a planning administrator who i s going by the book then i t can drive you up the wall. Guidelines can then become dangerous." C. "Guidelines do not necessarily correct the assessment process becuase one gets incompetence in the interpretation of the guidelines themselves." Category IV - (Planners) A. "Our guidelines can't be too i d e a l i s t i c - motherhood state-ments. To us they are minimum standards, to certain develop-ers they are ideals. The guidelines are operating as a safe-guard against bad designs. While i t i s true that guidelines are for reference and do not form a part of by-law regulations i t should be understood that they are interpretive but only to a degree. This i s to say that guidelines make recommenda-tions on usuable open space in a housing development. How you provide for that open space i s interpretive but neverthe-le s s , you must provide for i t somehow." B. "The guidelines are needed for those developers who treat the discretionary zones as a heyday with an attitude that I can do anything I want here. With most developers and architects these guidelines are attainable and they are quite f l e x i b l e . Through the process we are able to s i t down with the architect to establish what pa r t i c u l a r p r i n c i p l e s , are?. impossible to meet, what p r i n c i p l e s should be relaxed and what tradeoffs can be made." C. "Guidelines set certain c r i t e r i a which development must adhere to in order to meet the City's objectives. However in order for the process to work properly, the guidelines -103-must be looked at in the context.of what p o l i c i e s you have for a p a r t i c u l a r area. The O f f i c i a l Development Plan By-law sets out some regulatory requirements but the guidelines also have to be related to various planning p o l i c i e s for' an area. Every a r c h i t e c t should have a working knowledge of thi s whole process." The ninth question asked the respondents whether they f e l t C i t y of Vancouver Planners have been givemtoo much discretionary authority in the evaluative use of guidelines to review project designs. Category I - (Rejected Architects) A l l three respondents in this category believed there i s too much discretionary authority given to planners in the review pro-cess. Category II - (Research Architects) The three respondents in Category II believed that the amount of discretionary authority was necessary to ensure the successful operation of the discretionary zoning system. One respondent stated that there have been occasional abuses of the system by some planners while another respondent stated; "There are so many checks and balances along the way that any individual's statement or position i s minute. Where there i s some re a l e f f e c t i s when you get the Director of Planning who i s not knowledgeable in a certain area or appreciative of a major concern and sees the project from some incomplete basis or has some bias or has a v a l i d alternative idea. You end up forcing the solution for that s i t e to be something acceptable to that person. Discretion i s necessary because the c i t y i s f u l l of d i f -ferent l o t s and conditions and you need that d i s c r e t i o n . Some person may be unduly penalized because something i s happening on the adjacent l o t . If a l l l o t s and conditions were the same then we'd be pretty certain on what we'd a l -low." Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) A. This respondent f e l t there was tremendous potential in d i s -cretionary zoning for advancing not just innovative ideas for housing but also the o v e r a l l quality of housing design. -104-Respondent A was s a t i s f i e d with the l e v e l of di s c r e t i o n in Vancouver's Development Approval Process. B. "I prefer discretionary attitudes to following rules hard and fas t . In order to prefer d i s c r e t i o n you have to be able to communicate and discuss things with people and r a t i o n a l l y explain to them why you're doing something. A building designer who's building his own house would rather have a set of rules to build - he'd rather not discuss i t - he just wants his permit and may not want discretionary authority." C. This respondent believed that in certain cases there i s too much discretionary authority "especially when arb i t r a r y de-cisions are made by i n f l e x i b l e , unqualified clerks who don't understand the process." Category IV?- (Planners) A l l three respondents in this category believe the amount of discretionary authority allocated to planners i s j u s t i f i a b l e in order for design guidelines and discretionary zoning to oper-ate properly. The tenth question asked the respondents whether they believed q u a l i f i e d people were evaluating housing projects de-signs within The Vancouver City Planning Department. A l l nine architects interviewed replied that they f e l t in many cases people who weren't properly q u a l i f i e d were evaluating their projects. The Plan Checker was frequently c i t e d as the member of the Planning Department who has a great deal to do with the evaluation but i s the least q u a l i f i e d to perform this task. A few of the reasons mentioned most often were: a) The Plan Checker does not have s u f f i c i e n t knowledge and understanding of the design and building process. b) The Plan Checker i s not capable of properly i n t e r -pretating the guidelines. One of the planners responded that many members of the c i t y s t a f f who are involved with evaluation have been in private practice and have b u i l t buildings - "They've been through the -105-process." This respondent f e l t the c r i t i c i s m s of plan checkers were u n j u s t i f i e d and that the problem may l i e in the fact that the plan checker's job s p e c i f i c a t i o n i s not c l e a r l y defined. Two of the respondents in Category IV did state that in certain cases the architects may be right in their assessment that they are not being evaluated by equally q u a l i f i e d people. The eleventh question asked the respondents i f they could suggest ways that design guidelines could be improved. Category I - (Rejected Architects) Respondents A and C did not offer any suggestions on how guide-l i n e s could be improved. Respondent B believes guidelines are a good thing but only i f they operate as mental checklists to help a designer under tremendous pressure to get a s a t i s f a c t o r y project out. This respondent also stated that guidelines may be okay for the review process so long as the people reviewing a project understand the design process. Category II - (Research Architects) A. "Guidelines must be more s p e c i f i c and there should be fewer of them. There should be ten to twelve fundamentally im-portant statements that should be said by the public sector to protect people from themselves. But guidelines must be stated so that there i s a great deal of f l e x i b i l i t y . " B. "Guidelines have to evolve with additional knowledge, with changing conditions. There has to be an annual complete requestioning so that there i s a c y c l i c a l process going on. This way you're building on what r e a l l y i s sound, you're fine tuning what i s not completely sound but i s p a r t i a l l y sound and you're rejecting those things that are inapplicable." C. "The c l i e n t , user and a r c h i t e c t - a l l three should have a hand in preparing and administering guidelines. This i s a tough thing to do because i t s hard to get the public i n -volved and i t can be quite c o s t l y . " Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) A. "The guidelines must be constructive verbal statements that -106-are not s t i f l i n g right of the bat. The important thing i s not the guideline so much as the dialogue. Guidelines are necessary to t e l l you what the dialogue i s going to be about. The dialogue i s essential to allow us to express our concerns and the c l i e n t ' s concerns to the guys in the h a l l . We haven't published these as a set of guidelines for the people at. City Ha l l but we are going to have that dialogue." B. " A l l of the guidelines for housing design could be put to-gether in some un i f i e d whole. Every year they are reviewed. Its got to be a process. Guidelines should never be pat i f there are going to be new guidelines or i f they are going to be withdrawn because i t s out of date - there i s no reason for that guideline anymore. They should be done on a yearly basis not in between though. Ideally, some kind of conference where you would i n v i t e representatives from a r c h i t e c t s , planners, C.M.H.C., from everyone in the process from HUDAC (Housing and Urban Development Association) to U.D.I. (Urban Development Institute) and have a discussion of the guidelines and have a feedback. I guess the municipality, i f they're the govern-ment w i l l have the l a s t say but they have an opportunity to hear everyone's input and guidelines could be questioned for their v a l i d i t y . Try to have guidelines r e j u s t i f i e d each year. If you couldn't get through a l l the guidelines once a year then there's too many guidelines. If that task i s too d i f f i -c u l t - i f a guy has to go through the process everytime he does a project, surely the c i t y can do i t once a year. Its a way of keeping the number down." C. "There are too many guidelines (ie. C.M.H.C. vs. the C i t y ' s ) . We should have fewer guidelines developed from clearer p r i o r i -t i e s . " Category IV - (Planners) A. "Our current guidelines are lacking in the environmental as-pects, i e . there are too many a r c h i t e c t u r a l guidelines when we should have more urban design guidelines. The guidelines should encourage projects which in some way w i l l make a con-t r i b u t i o n to the surrounding neighbourhood." B. "Guidelines must be developed to encourage buildings that relate p o s i t i v e l y to neighbouring buildings as well as the immediate community." C. "Of a l l the guidelines some are good, some are bad and some are vague. What we should aim- for:, i s some consolidation of the guidelines. There should be a general set of guidelines which are applicable in a l l sit u a t i o n s . Whether i t s False Creek or Fairview Slopes, certain concerns for l i v e a b i l i t y are almost the same. We always talk about orientation, sun, views, etc. - these things don't change. What should be iden-t i f i e d for each area are guidelines which are peculiar to that p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . Each area i s d i f f e r e n t in charac-ter. Guidelines should be reviewed whenever necessary and at -107-least on an annual basis. We don't have this d i r e c t i v e from Council. They think that once we have guidelines i t s fine but I think i t s wrong because they could be tested and there could be problems. I think the r e a l problem i s that there are so many d i f f e r e n t guidelines architects get confused." The twelfth and f i n a l question asked the respondents to suggest recommendations to improve the operation of the C i t y of Vancouver's Development Permit Review Process. Category I - (Rejected Architects) A. "The people reviewing the projects should have a minimum of five to ten years training with an a r c h i t e c t , contractor or developer before working in planning. They must understand the building process thoroughly." B. "If a developer builds a lousy building he's going to suffer badly. The market takes care of developers much more s t r i n -gently than c i t y h a l l can ever hope to do. The responsi-b i l i t y i s forced upon developers by the market and they are quickly finding out that good architects are worth employing. The people at C i t y H a l l must get r i d of a l l the misconceptions that are tying up the building process - ridiculous notions that noise w i l l diminish i f you build a 25' yard instead of a 20' yard." C. Respondent C questioned the rights of everyone who sets them-selves up as an evaluator in the process without the neces-sary q u a l i f i c a t i o n s which w i l l produce sound evaluations. Category II - (Research Architects) A. "Some r e a l i t y must be established in the process. The i n -creased cost and l e v e l of energy in the evaluation process may be greater than the cost of increasing the amenity you are trying to control. Then you are already in the diseconomy, a l l ready at a point where the more you try to increase quality by these regulations the more costly i t w i l l be and the great-er that cost w i l l be than i f you had put i t in i n i t i a l l y . The process must be s i m p l i f i e d and made more e x p l i c i t . It must be more accessible, more personal and better understood." B. "I recommended that there be a weekly cycle so that i f a pro-je c t ever came in by Wednesday Noon i t would h i t the following week cycle and a l l the meetings at City H a l l were set up on that cycle so that every week or two weeks there was a con-stant repeating of the meetings. Projects would have to go into and get through the cycle and cause the people to com-plete the agenda for that meeting." C. "The people producing the design guidelines are not the ones using them to evaluate projects in the review process. I -108-think there i s confusion with regard to the intent of the guidelines as a result and this inevitably slows the process." Category III - (Architects Active in the West End of Vancouver) A. "The process must be less secretive. The c r i t e r i a for evalu-ating design whether i t i s guidelines, planning p o l i c i e s , etc. has to be talked about and understood right from the beginning. The secrecy by which a l l the committees operate i s s i l l y and non-productive - i t s design by correspondence. I don't mind having other people involved but l e t s get the right people assessing the project at the beginning and not at the end when i t s too l a t e . " B. "The process must maintain f l e x i b i l i t y by having the guidelines, p o l i c i e s , etc. read as intent statements and not as r i g i d rules. If we are talking about planning departments in general, those who administer must f u l l y understand what the intent means and should not adopt s t i f f , i n f l e x i b l e attitudes in the re-view of projects." C. "The process i s too slow for smaller projects and perhaps a two-stage development process may be better. A scheme would be reviewed very quickly - yes, no or modify and preliminary approval would be obtained. Then you s i t down and work out the protracted d e t a i l together in order to obtain f i n a l D.P.A. approval.". Category IV - (Planners) A. "We need more q u a l i f i e d people p a r t i c u l a r l y in the d i s c r e -tionary zones. The people who make the f i n a l decisions are not very design oriented so we get compromises. I think a separate department of arc h i t e c t s , urban designers and planners should be set up to handle D.P.A.'s only. This way a project would be followed by the same people from s t a r t to f i n i s h and would be assessed by q u a l i f i e d people.i" B. "Currently up to six t y percent of our time i s spent with development permits and we are able to devote less and less time to actual planning. I don't think we can eleminate the review and evaluation by the planner and ar c h i t e c t but i f well q u a l i f i e d people handle more of the review process, I believe that process w i l l improve and we w i l l have more time to devote to more long range planning." C. "The process has so many steps. What complicates .it further i s that you have community involvement. Whereas a normal application may take eight weeks i t could be four months. The ar c h i t e c t has to work with a neighbourhood group to solve a design problem and this slows the process. There i s more c i t i z e n involvement in the discretionary zones since notice boards go up and anyone can voice their objections. At the moment there are two ways to f i l e a development application. One way i s the complete application and the other i s the pre--109-liminary form. Whether i t s a preliminary or complete i t takes the same amount of time and when you put in a complete ap-p l i c a t i o n after submitting a preliminary you double up the time that i t takes. The real problem i s that departments l i k e Engineering look at a D.P.A. the same way whether i t s complete or not. I think we have to look into ways of short-ening the preliminary process." Summary of the Interview Responses Design Guidelines: In P r i n c i p l e 1. Ten of the twelve respondents stated that they were in favour of design guidelines in p r i n c i p l e . The two respondents opposed to the guidelines were in Category I. 2. A l l twelve respondents stated that they believed there was educational value in design guidelines for students of a r c h i -tecture and planning. The s p e c i f i c educational values most frequently c i t e d was greater understanding of design. Ten respon-dents also believed there was an educational value in design guide-l i n e s for practicing architects but two respondents in Category I answered negatively to this question. Eight respondents supported the idea of having the Planning Department educate the a r c h i t e c t u r a l profession and developers to their concerns for housing through the design guidelines. The three respondents in Category I were opposed to this idea while one respondent in Category II believed that education should be the architect's own r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . 3. It i s d i f f i c u l t to synthesize the varied r e p l i e s that were received in response to this question. However i t i s apparent that a majority (eight) respondents were c r i t i c a l of Planning Department administrators who occasionally apply the guidelines as i f they were hard and fast rules - thereby producing a r b i t r a r y and inconsistent decisions. Two respondents objected to guide-l i n e s which bare l i t t l e r e l a t i o n to ind i v i d u a l projects; one - 1 1 0 -respondent f e l t there were too many guidelines while another thought they should be more urban design oriented. Design Guidelines and A r c h i t e c t u r a l Practice 4. Eight of the twelve respondents believed that i t was pos-s i b l e to achieve a successful combination of s o c i o l o g i c a l p r i n -c i p l e s as expressed in conceptual design guidelines with the a r c h i t e c t u r a l task of creating a building form. A ninth res-pondent supported s o c i o l o g i c a l input but only when the building program i s so complex that i t requires more d i s c i p l i n e s than one i n d i v i d u a l i s capable of possessing. The three respondents opposed to this concept were in Category I. 5. Eight of the twelve respondents did not believe that design guidelines in any way hindered the c r e a t i v i t y of the a r c h i t e c t . The reason most often c i t e d was that guidelines are not s p e c i f i c enough to place l i m i t s on c r e a t i v i t y . Three respondents in Category I and one respondent in Category III believed guidelines r e s t r i c t an architect to some degree. 6. Seven of the twelve respondents stated that they f e l t design guidelines have encouraged good architecture. One respondent in Category II f e l t that the creation of good architecture i s t o t a l l y independent of the development control process including design guidelines. Another respondent in Category III stated that good housing and good communities were a factor of many other considera-tions besides guidelines. Three respondents in Category I did not f e e l that design guidelines encourage good architecture from the profession. 7. Seven of the twelve respondents stated that they did not f e e l design guidelines operate as a set of standards, defining solu--111-tions and thereby resulting in mundane architecture. Three res-pendents in Category I and one respondent in Category III f e l t guidelines do operate as standards while one respondent in Category II thought guidelines are occasionally applied as standards. Design Guidelines: The Process 8. When asked to evaluate the current use of design guidelines in the City of Vancouver's Development Approval Process a majority of respondents (nine) c i t e d the sometimes i n f l e x i b l e and a r b i t r a r y attitudes of planning department personnel who are in charge of interpreting the guidelines when reviewing projects. Two respondents in Category IV thought the guide-li n e s have prevented poor designs from making an appearance in the c i t y . 9. Nine of the twelve respondents did not f e e l that Planners had been given too much discretionary authority in the evalua-tive use of guidelines to review project designs. Three respondents in Category I believed that planners had too much discretionary authority. 10. A l l nine architects interviewed did not believe they were being evaluated by equally q u a l i f i e d people and c i t e d plan checkers and other non-architecturally trained personnel who did not f u l l y understand the design process or who are not capable of interpreting the design guidelines. One of the planners responded that such c r i t i c i s m s were not j u s t i f i e d and stated that the problem may l i e in the fact that certain jobs in the planning department are not well enough defined. -112-Two planners were sympathetic in certain cases with the c r i -ticisms raised by the ar c h i t e c t s . 11. Eight respondents suggested ways of improving design guide-l i n e s . Three respondents, one each in Categories II, III and IV respectively, stated that guidelines should continue to evolve and change according to an annual review process. Three res-pondents, again one each from Categories II, III and IV stated that there should be fewer and more s p e c i f i c design guidelihes. One respondent in Category II suggested that the c l i e n t , user and ar c h i t e c t should have input into the preparation and ad-ministration of the guidelines. Two respondents in Category IV stated that guidelines should have more urban design content. 12. Four of the respondents made suggestions which were directed towards speeding up the Development Permit Approval Process. These included a proposal for a regular weekly cycle of review, revisions to the preliminary review process, more e f f i c i e n t use of planning departments time (ie. having a separate group of arch i t e c t s , planners and urban designers to review the projects). Six respondents suggested that better q u a l i f i e d people must be hired for the review process and two respondents stated that the process must be less secretive and more open. Conclusions; A Note on Category I Respondents - The consistently negative res-ponses from the three architects in Category I deserves special attention. In t h i s study the author attempted to present the view-points of a v a l i d representative sampling of architects who have been involved with housing and design guidelines in the City of Vancouver. It was f e l t that such a sample would not be complete -113-without the views of those architects whose projects had been rejected or sent back for extensive design revisions because of a f a i l u r e to meet the intention and s p i r i t of the relevant design guidelines. The overwhelmingly negative attitudes that were obtained-in these interviews may suggest that these architects f e e l that i t i s the design guidelines which are in some way holding them back and preventing them from securing develop-ment permits for their projects. In many cases what i s in fact holding them back is. the poor qua l i t y of designs they have submit-ted to the planning department. This assessment has come from both the planning department as well as a number of private architects interviewed for this study. There may be several reasons for this including an i n a b i l i t y to design, pressure from the client-developer or personal motivation. In essence the design guidelines have played an important role in preventing poor qua l i t y housing design from being b u i l t in Vancouver. On the basis of the information obtained through the per-sonal interviews that have been outlined in this chapter the f o l -lowing conclusions have been reached: 1) The concept of design guidelines i s favourably looked upon by the a r c h i t e c t u r a l and planning professions. 2) There i s a d e f i n i t e educational value in design guide-l i n e s for students and p r a c t i t i o n e r s of architecture and planning. The City of Vancouver Planning Department i s generally supported in i t s role as an educator of architects and developers on the c i t y ' s concern for housing through information tools such as design guidelines. 3) The single most objectionable aspect of design guide--114-l i n e s which is. most-often mentioned by.the architects in the role of the planning department administrators who occasionally apply guidelines in a s p i r i t other than that for which they were intended, i e . As hard and fast rules. 4) Both architects and planners support the idea that i t is possible to achieve a successful combination of s o c i o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s as expressed in conceptual design guidelines, with the a r c h i t e c t u r a l task of creating a building form. 5) Both architects and planners do not support the idea that design guidelines hinder the c r e a t i v i t y of the a r c h i t e c t . 6) There i s less conclusive support amongst the architects for the idea that design guidelines have encouraged the profession to produce good architecture. However in a number of interviews several architects and planners stated that they thought the guide-l i n e s probably prevent the worst designs from being b u i l t . 7) It i s not generally believed that design guidelines operate as a set of standards defining solutions and thereby resulting in mundane architecture. However, i t i s at the same time suggested that members of the planning department poorly trained and unaware of the complexities of the design process attempt to apply interpretive guidelines as a set of standards. 8) Evaluation of the current use of design guidelines t y p i c a l l y mentioned the sometimes i n f l e x i b l e and a r b i t r a r y attitude.of certain Planning Department personnel in charge of interpreting the design guidelines in project review. 9) It i s not f e l t that Planners in the City of Vancouver's Planning Deaprtment have been given too much discretionary authority in the evaluative use of design guidelines. -115-10) A m a j o r i t y o f a r c h i t e c t s do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t p r o j e c t s a r e b e i n g e v a l u a t e d by e q u a l l y q u a l i f i e d p e o p l e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t r e v i e w p r o c e s s . 11) D e s i g n g u i d e l i n e s s h o u l d e v o l v e and change t h r o u g h -a n n u a l e x a m i n a t i o n and o n l y t h e most r e l e v a n t g u i d e l i n e s s h o u l d r e m a i n . 12) M a j o r improvements t o t h e D e v e l o p m e n t P e r m i t Review P r o c e s s s h o u l d i n c l u d e some methods f o r s p e e d i n g up t h e p r o c e s s and h a v i n g more q u a l i f i e d p e o p l e i n c h a r g e o f i t . -116-CHAPTER VII  Conclusions This chapter consists of five parts. The f i r s t section outlines several recommendations for the future use of design guidelines based on the information derived from the case study. The second part presents an evaluation of the v a l i d i t y of the hypotheses. The t h i r d section evaluates the concept of design guidelines in p r i n c i p l e p a r t i c u l a r l y in l i g h t of the arguments which are made against them. The fourth part des-cribes the study's relevance to the practice of urban planning while the f i n a l part consists of some recommendations for further research. Findings for the Future Use of Design Guidelines 1. That.design guidelines for housing development should con-tinue to be used in the City of Vancouver. Comments This finding i s based on three factors: a) the favourable support for guidelines amongst the a r c h i -tects and planners that were interviewed for this study. b) the continuing existence of many of the concerns for l i v e -a b i l i t y and urban design which led to the introduction of design guidelines in the f i r s t place, and c) the essential role that the guidelines play in the City of Vancouver's Discretionary Development Permit Approval System. 2. That a l l architecture and planning students and pra c t i t i o n e r s can learn from design guidelines. Comments This finding i s based on two factors: -117-a) the b e l i e f in the educational value of design guidelines as expressed by the architects and planners interviewed, and b) the need for a communication device which w i l l allow the City of Vancouver's Planning Department to explain their p o l i c i e s and concerns for housing, to arch i t e c t s , planners and developers. 3. That design guidelines must be applied as intent statements and not as hard and fast rules. Comments This finding i s based on three factors: a) the very limited l i t e r a t u r e that discusses how guidelines should operate, b) the opinions and attitudes of the architects and planners interviewed for this study, and c) the role guidelines play in discretionary decision-making. 4. That design guidelines maintain their f l e x i b l e nature so as not to hinder the c r e a t i v i t y of the architect thereby re-sult i n g in mundane designs and standardized rules. Comments This finding i s based on four factors: a) the discussion on the types and intended use of design guidelines, b) the comparison between the t r a d i t i o n a l and discretionary development control systems, c) the l i t e r a t u r e on administrative d i s c r e t i o n and d) the interviews of the architects and planners. 5. That Planners in the City of Vancouver's Planning Department -118-maintain the amount of discretionary authority they have been granted for the development review process so long as this authority i s applied in a non-arbitrary, consistent and f a i r fashion. Comments This finding i s based on three factors: a) the importance of discretionary decision-making to the more f l e x i b l e development control system, b) the l i t e r a t u r e and discussion on administrative d i s c r e t i o n , c) the comments received from the personal interviews. 6. That the most q u a l i f i e d people be in charge of the C i t y of Van-couver's Development Permit Review Process. Comments This finding i s based on the comments and opinions of the architects and planners interviewed for the study and on the l i t e r a t u r e con-cerning administrative d i s c r e t i o n . 7. That design guidelines should evolve and change through annual examination and only the most relevant guidelines should remain. Comments This finding i s based on the information obtained through the personal interviews. II Evaluation of the Hypotheses The hypothesis of the study was that although design guide-l i n e s are intended to be generative, their use for evaluative purposes in terms of the administrative review of projects has created a widely held b e l i e f amongst many architects and developers -119-that they are being used in a regulatory fashion. It was further hypothesized that the discretionary zoning system may not, in fact, be any more f l e x i b l e than the t r a d i t i o n a l zoning system i t was intended to replace. The v a l i d i t y of the hypotheses w i l l be analyzed on the basis of the following four sources of i n f o r -mation contained both in the main body of the thesis and the case study: 1. An i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of three types of design guidelines under generative, regulatory and evaluative categories. 2. A comparison between t r a d i t i o n a l and discretionary zoning and development control systems. 3. The relevant l i t e r a t u r e on administrative d i s c r e t i o n . 4. A review of the conclusions derived from the personal interviews which are d i r e c t l y relevant to the evaluation of the hypothesis. 1. Categories of Design Guidelines The majority of design guidelines currently used in the Vancouver area are not highly regulatory in nature. Apart from the noteable exception of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's Site Planning Handbook, most guidelines are f l e x i b l e and i n t e r -pretive, attempting to a s s i s t the architect in generating optimal housing developments which satisfy.both user needs and urban design considerations. It should be noted that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation i s currently revising the Site Planning Hand-book recognizing that many of i t s p r i n c i p l e s are no longer r e a l -i s t i c or desirable. It i s expected that a much more f l e x i b l e guide w i l l emerge from the Corporation. With regard to format, many of the design guidelines used in -120-Vancouver tend to follow Christopher Alexander's Pattern Language to varying degrees. The generative nature of Alexander's Patterns consequently have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the character of the design guidelines. However, there i s currently some debate as to whether the Pattern Language i s generative and f l e x i b l e or pre-s c r i p t i v e and regulatory. Protzen has stated that "although the Pattern t e l l s you everything that i s essential for dealing with a p a r t i c u l a r problem there i s in several cases no opportunities to solve i t in an e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t way.""'" However Alexander has argued that the 'besigner w i l l choose any patterns that are desired, w i l l be able to change their content and format whenever necessary and w i l l maintain the option to develop his or her own patterns." Based on the information presented so far, design guidelines when segregated from the process in which they are applied are for the most part not regulatory in nature. However, since design guidelines are.also used in an evalua-tive manner by planners in the housing development review process i t i s possible that generative guidelines could be used in a regulatory fashion by a planner who i s applying a r b i t r a r y per-sonal judgements or who i s not conversant with the interpretive nature of the guidelines. The degree to which t h i s practice takes place i s assessed in the case study section. 2. T r a d i t i o n a l vs. Discretionary Zoning and Development Control Because design guidelines are only a part of a much larger process (The City of Vancouver's Development Permit Approval Pro-cess) an analysis and comparison was made between the t r a d i t i o n a l zoning and development control which preceeded the introduction of design guidelines and the succeeding discretionary zoning system -121-with which the guidelines are currently associated. The comparison revealed that the new discretionary zoning system i s considerably less regulatory than t r a d i t i o n a l zoning. Whereas t r a d i t i o n a l zoning consists of highly regulatory, i n -f l e x i b l e rules which are subject to very l i t t l e i nterpretation, discretionary zoning i s based on by-laws, planning p o l i c i e s and design guidelines which allow a substantial degree of i n t e r -pretation and f l e x i b i l i t y . Whereas t r a d i t i o n a l zoning provides r i g i d mathematical formulas and building envelopes into which an architect must f i t his scheme, discretionary zoning and development control begins with a d i f f e r e n t premise: How to best design a building to meet user needs and aesthetic/urban design c r i t e r i a . Apart from maximum standards for building density in terms of floor space r a t i o and minimum requirements for parking and loading the discretionary zoning system does not dictate r i g i d mathema-t i c a l formulae or building envelopes. With t r a d i t i o n a l zoning highly regulatory standards for building height and setbacks l i m i t the creative p o s s i b i l i t i e s for the ar c h i t e c t and often lead to mundane project designs. Conversely, under discretionary zoning, the ar c h i t e c t i s given every opportunity to provide a creative building which makes a po s i t i v e contribution to the surrounding neighbourhood and s a t i s f i e s the needs of i t s users. This comparison has shown that in theory there i s a consider-ably less degree of regulation associated with discretionary zoning and i t s accompanying design guidelines p a r t i c u l a r l y when contrasted with the t r a d i t i o n a l form of development control. The hypotheses i s not well supported by this comparative analysis. -122-3. The Literature on Discretionary Authority The l i t e r a t u r e on administrative d i s c r e t i o n suggests that d i s c r e t i o n has become essential for the f l e x i b i l i t y necessary to achieve solutions to increasingly complex problems of the current technological age. Undue legalism and r i g i d rules can no longer provide for more rapid and adaptable responses to ever changing conditions. This provides a rationale for the adoption of discretionary development control over t r a d i t i o n a l zoning in many parts of Vancouver and gives further support to the idea that the discretionary process i s considerably less regulatory and less l i k e l y to paralyze creative problem solving. The l i t e r a t u r e review also revealed that procedural safeguards and "guidelines" are essential to the proper functioning of discretionary decision-making. In short, the information contained in t h i s section gives l i t t l e support to the hypotheses. 4. A review of the conclusions drawn from the personal interviews  and d i r e c t l y relevant to the evaluation of the hypothesis. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The concept of design guidelines i s looked upon favourably by the a r c h i t e c t u r a l and planning professions. 2. (c) The Vancouver Planning Department i s generally supported in i t s role as an educator of architects and developers, on the c i t y ' s concerns for housing through tools such as design guidelines. 3. The objectionable aspect of design guidelines which i s most often mentioned by the architects i s their application by plan-ning department administrators as hard and fast rules which was not the intention. 5. The idea that design guidelines hinder the c r e a t i v i t y of an -123-architect i s not supported by the representative sampling of architects and planners. 6. It i s not f e l t that design guidelines operate as a set of standards defining solutions and thereby resulting in mundane architecture. Nevertheless, i t was suggested by a majority of architects who are unaware of the design process to attempt to apply interpretive guidelines as a set of standards. 7. It i s not believed that planners in Vancouver's Planning Department have been given too much discretionary authority in the evaluative use of design guidelines to assess projects submitted for development permits. Comments & Conclusion The case study has revealed that based on a l l of the theore-t i c a l comparisons, i e . (the on paper analysis) which included: a) a discussion of the content and the intended application of the majority of design guidelines b) a comparison between the t r a d i t i o n a l and discretionary zoning systems c) a review of the l i t e r a t i v e on discretionary authority. There i s i n s u f f i c i e n t support to attest to the v a l i d i t y of the two hypotheses that were made at the outset of the thesis. However, i t i s of primary importance to note that the case study also revealed a basic contradiction between the the o r e t i c a l application of design guidelines and their application in practice. The hypotheses that the design guidelines are perceived to be regulatory and that the discretionary zoning system was no more f l e x i b l e than the i n f l e x i b l e t r a d i t i o n a l zoning system i t was intended to replace, was given a high degree of support by the com--124-ments obtained in the personal interviews with members of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l profession in Vancouver. The i n f l e x i b l e and a r b i t r a r y decision-making on the part of i l l - t r a i n e d planners was offered as a frequent complaint concerning the discretionary zoning system. At this point i t i s important to c l a r i f y two aspects: 1) It was not the design guidelines themselves that were perceived to be regulatory in nature. Rather i t was the sometimes ar b i t r a r y and capricious manner by which the guidelines were being applied by planning department members in the development approval process that was c i t e d . 2) The discretionary zoning system was c r i t i c i z e d for being as i n f l e x i b l e on occasion as the t r a d i t i o n a l zoning system i t was intended to replace. However the majority of architects nevertheless believe the new system to be a vast improvement (with regard to f l e x i b i l i t y ) over the old. The problem once again lay with certain individuals in the planning department who were perceived to be incompetent in p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the discretionary system. An inherent d i f f i c u l t y in the o v e r a l l system i s that the amount of discretionary authority held;, by c i t y planning bodies i s not e a s i l y quantified. Therefore in attempting to regulate the somewhat nebulous aspects of design and aesthetics the discretionary judgements of the planners w i l l often contradict those of the architects submitting schemes. Discretion must be seen to be an objective decision based on sound p r i n c i p l e s rather than personal whim in order for the system to succeed. The graphic comparison .of ..buildings developed under the two .systems -125-suggest the improvements gained through the adoption of the discretionary system! An Evaluation of Design Guidelines in P r i n c i p l e On the basis of a l l the information c o l l e c t e d i t i s con-cluded that design guidelines serve a useful function in en-couraging housing developments that w i l l meet a variety of user needs and w i l l relate well to surrounding neighbourhoods. As outlined in the Category I responses in Chapter V, there s t i l l exists a body of opinion which i s against design guidelines for the following reasons: 1) the d i f f i c u l t y in establishing aesthetic standards which can be objectively judged. 2) the d i f f i c u l t y in securing competent architects and planners who are capable of passing judgements on the designs of other a r c h i t e c t s . 3) a b e l i e f that the guidelines w i l l encourage regimen-tation and bureaucratic paralyzation of the creative process. 4) a r b i t r a r y and r i g i d interpretations of the guidelines by planning administrators. However, the f l e x i b l e , interpretive and generative nature of many of the design guidelines provide the opportunities for architects and planners to work cooperatively in producing pro-jects that not only meet c i t y objectives for housing but also the objectives of the parties in charge of development. Furthermore, the case study has shown that design guidelines do not i n h i b i t the c r e a t i v i t y of the architect nor do they encourage mediocrity in architecture. It must also be stated that the guidelines have play--126-ed an important role in preventing the worst examples of architec-ture from being b u i l t . It i s concluded that design guidelines have contributed to a higher standard of design without i n h i b i t i n g the creative process of the architect or encouraging mediocre designs. Relevance of the Study to Urban Planning It i s the broad objective of urban planners to create communities which are useful, a t t r a c t i c e , convenient environ-ments for a l l . With an increasing awareness and s e n s i t i v i t y to user needs for housing design as well as the developing con-cern for the ways buildings relate to each other in an urban design sense, the design guidelines represent a methodological tool which may help provide the means to a l l of the above ends. Private and public development should be coordinated to increase the beauty of North American c i t i e s and to reduce the physical and v i s u a l chaos by which they are currently char-acterized. Design guidelines and discretionary development control represent unique attempts at providing an o v e r a l l dev-elopment strategy based on sound user needs and aesthetic/urban design p r i n c i p l e s but which at the same time t r i e s to ensure the maximum f l e x i b i l i t y necessary for design freedom and the oppor-tunity to respond quickly to increasingly complex conditions. In the future planners w i l l continue to be c a l l e d upon for their assistance in both drafting and applying design guide-l i n e s . The quality of the guidelines that are produced as well as the process in which they are used w i l l have s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e cts on the physical and s o c i a l environments of our c i t i e s . -12 7-Recommendations for Further Research-Further investigation into the impact and effectiveness of design guidelines could be conducted by following various projects through the City of Vancouver's Development Permit Approval Process from preliminary design stages to f i n a l pre-sentations cataloging a l i s t of a l l changes and refinements in accordance with the intent of the design guidelines. In this way the f u l l impact and ef f e c t of the guidelines on the design of housing in response to user needs and aesthetic/urban design c r i t e r i a could be assessed. It i s recognized that users can play an important role in the housing design process. In many cases such involvement has lead to a reduction in arb i t r a r y decision-making on the part of architects and planners and has resulted in building which achieves a greater s a t i s f a c t i o n of user needs and desires. The ways and means of involving users in the design and planning process c e r t a i n l y warrant investigation. -128-CHAPTER VII  Footnotes 1. Protzen, Jean Pierre, Concrete, Vol. 1, No. 8, College of Environmental Design, Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a . 2. Alexander, Christopher, A Pattern Language, Center For Environ-mental Structures, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1977). -129-BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Alexander, Christopher, A Pattern Language, The Center for Environmental Structures, 1977. Dennis, Michael; Fish, Susan, Programs in Search of a Policy: Low Income Housing in Canada. Toronto: Hakkert Publishers, 1972. Gans, Herbert J . , People and Plans, Essays on Urban Problems  and Solutions. New York: Basic Books Inc., Publishers, 1968. Goodman, Robert, After the Planners. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971. Havighurst, Clark C. (ed.), Administrative Discretion Problems  of Decision-Making by Governmental Agencies. New York: Oceana Publications Inc., 1974. Hester, Randolph T., J r . , Neighbourhood Space. New York: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross Inc., 1975. Howard, Ebenezer, Garden C i t i e s of Tomorrow. London: Faber & Faber Ltd., 1902. Lubove, Roy, Twentieth Century Pittsburgh. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1969. Newman, Oscar, Design Guidelines For Creating Defensible Space. Washington: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1976. Nonet, P h i l l i p e , Administrative Justice (Advocacy and Change in a Government Agency. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1969. Spreiregan, Paul, Urban Design: The Architecture of Towns and  C i t i e s . Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965. DESIGN GUIDELINES & CITY BY-LAWS Design Guidelines for Single Family Homes in the Locarno  Subdivision. Block Bros. Contractors, Vancouver, 1976. Development Guidelines For Carma Subdivisions. Carma Developers Ltd., Vancouver, 1977 Downtown Guidelines (11) Design Guidelines. Vancouver City Planning Department, September, 1975. False Creek Design Guidelines, Thompson, Berwick & Pratt Architects, Engineers & Planners, Nov. 1974. -130-Bibliography con't. K i t s i l a n o Design Guidelines, City of Vancouver Planning Depart-ment, January, 1977. McAfee, Ann, Guidelines for Multi-Family Housing. Vancouver: City Planning Department, 1977. Site Planning Handbook, Central Mortgage & Housing Corporation, Vancouver, 1966. Ted Wrinkle & Associates (ed.), A Qualitative Checklist For Com-pact Housing. Vancouver: Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t Planning Department, February, 1975. Urban Family Housing - Planning Guidelines, Thompson, Berwick & Pratt Architects, Engineers & Planners. Department of Housing-Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, August, 1975. West End Planning P o l i c i e s and Design Guidelines, City of Vancouver Planning Department, June, 1975. JOURNALS & REPORTS Brainerd, Harold B., "A B r i e f for A r c h i t e c t u r a l Control" in The  Planners Journal, (Vol. 4, No. 2), 1938. Cooper, C l a i r e , "Children in Residential Areas: Guidelines for Designers" in Landscape Architecture, L o u i s v i l l e A.S.L.A., Oct. '74 Cooper, C l a i r e , "Resident Attitudes Towards the Environment at St. Francis Square, San Francisco". Berkeley: Center for Planning and Development Research at the University of C a l i f o r -nia at Berkeley, July, 1970. Engstad, Peter, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Ottawa: Ministry of the S o l i c i t o r General of Canada, 1975. F o l l i c k , Edwin, "The Element of Discretion Inherent in Adminis-t r a t i v e Aj udication" . A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of J u r i s Doctor, Department of Post-Graduate Study, Blackstone School of Law, August, 1967. Lipman, Alan, T e r r i t o r a l i t y "A Useful A r c h i t e c t u r a l Concept". Montgomery, Robert, "Pattern Language" in The A r c h i t e c t u r a l Forum. New York: Whitney Publications, (Vol. 132, No. 1), January/February, 1970. Protzen, Jean Pierre, Concrete, (Vol. 1, No. 8) Berkeley: College of Environmental Design, November, 1977. Site Planning Handbook, Ottawa Central Mortgage and Housing Cor-poration, 1966. -131-1 Bibliography con't. Sommer, Robert, "Man's Proximate Environment" in Journal of Social Issues, Bertram, Raven H. (ed.) Dept. of Psych., University of C a l i f o r n i a , Los Angeles, (Vol. 3), 1972 Vanin, Daniel, "Legislating For Urban Aesthetics" Vancouver: Unpublished Master's Thesis, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972. Wexler, Discretionary University of B r i t i s h Authority, Vancouver, Columbia Law Library. Unpublished Thesis 6.1.6 Sense of Identity I I I I C.1.6 SENSE OF IDENTITY A person's home i s where he should feel at l iberty to freely express himself through his environment. At low densities this i s accomplished by choosing an individual home which ref lects the person's needs a n d t a s t e s , and by al ter ing the dwelling to conform when necessary. At higher densities standardization of units often reduces the opportunity for choice, and rules regulations, and building technologies combine to rule out alterations to suit the individual . The resident needs,addressed are: 1 i d e n t i f i a b i l i t y of unit 2 changeability of unit to suit needs. cn T-i P! ' u •H o CO pi o w pi •H rH rH •H • <D B TJ cC •H P> I e> •u i rH M X M Q Z w CM < Principle 16: RECOGNIZABLE DWELLINGS Organization of dwelling units should create recog-nizable groupings to encour-age areas of commonality, and formation of patterns of association. 16a Provide some variety within groupings of units , with respect to s ize , locat ion, etc. UAtfc»ee. oWK "BOTTOM 16b Arrange units to form small, ident i f iable groups. . MV NHWHOOURS. O o o o o o o o o o o NOT V>m«fc t>o i u\ie,w»K> 16c Provide groups of units with an amenity that residents can take pride i n , improve, and feel responsible for. -133-ln the house unit... APPENDIX II - A Qu a l i t a t i v e C h e c k l i s t for Compact Housing ; Can the occupants enjoy different views from the house unit?' examples: • A variety of views can enlarge the individual's sense of space within the compact housing unit: - a close view to a private landscaped space - a neighbourhood view - a view to distant features like mountains, moons, oceans and forests Is visual privacy possible between the windows of neighbouring units? examples: • Side facing windows can be offset • Window bays can be used. • Planting can screen views. Window bays with offset windows give light and view while preserving privacy in homes with very narrow sideyards. -134-APPENDIX III - K i t s i l a n o Design Guidelines i i . Roof g a r d e n s : F l a t r o o f s s h o u l d be made a c c e s s i b l e and l a n d -scaped so t h a t they p r o v i d e u s e a b l e open space. Roof gardens can Le o r i e n t e d , to the .sun, and p r o v i d e views and p r i v a c y . the b u i l d i n g s h o u l d be l o c a t e d on the s i t e to take maximum advantage o f sun, vi e w s , e x i s t i n g t r e e s and l a n d s c a p i n g , e t c . and m i n i m i z e n o i s e problems, o v e r s h a d o w i n g , view b l o c k a g e , e t c . APPENDIX IV - C.M.H.C. S i t e P l a n n i n g Handbook Section K ( cont 'd . ) 2 . Privacy zone Certain yards require an area of privacy either for the outdoor use of the occupants of a particular unit or to provide privacy within the unit from passersby. This area is known as the ' privacy zone, and it extends across the full width of the dwelling unit. The remainder of the yard and yards where no privacy zone is required may be used for communal pedestrian purposes by the occupants of the project. The yard depth and privacy zone requirements may vary depending upon the form of housing and on the use of the rooms having principal windows overlooking the yard. 3. Outdoor living area Each dwelling unit in horizontal multiple housing shall have one yard area which serves as an outdoor living area for the occupants. This yard is normally associated with the living room, but to allow flexibility in design the outdoor living area may alternatively be located adjacent to a dining room, family room, finished recreation room, study or den or, a kitchen which is combined with one of the above uses. 4. Yard dimensions for the An outdoor living area which is adjacent to a living room window or any alternative room outdoor living area listed in paragraph K3 shall have a minimum yard depth of 35 feet. No project walkway shall be located within 30 feet of the window and this 30 feet shall be regarded as the minimum privacy zone. The minimum yard depth and privacy zone may be reduced to 25'-0" and 17'-6" respectively where: a) the privacy zone is enclosed by a 6 foot high screen, or 21 -136-APPENDIX V - Developer Interview Responses 1. ) The f i r s t question t r i e d to determine whether the develo-pers f e l t their guidelines f a c i l i t a t e d easier marketing of the housing developments as well as increased sales (both i n i t i a l l y and re s a l e ) . Block Brothers The company feels that the use of design guidelines increase marketability and sales (resale for the owner as well)• Carma Developers The spokesman repeated the statement in their design guidelines. "Application of the best design p r i n c i p l e s within a subdivision benefits a l l - i n i t i a l l y the builder because of improved market-a b i l i t y , and. subsequently the owner because of better l i v e a b i l i t y and appreciation of rea l estate.values." Nu-West Development Corporation Nu-West feels that their design guidelines most d e f i n i t e l y i n -creased marketability and sales ( a l l around). Genstar Development Company In their opinion the use of design control increased the market-a b i l i t y and sales of the surrounding area. 2. ) The second question asked the developers whether the use of their design guidelines increased the costs of developing housing units. Block Brothers The company believes they have increased 'the costs of developing housing units by using design guidelines but only by a minimal amount (ie. $1,000 extra for cedar shake roof and $1,200 for higher qu a l i t y landscaping). -137-Carma Developers The company does not have any measure of the cost of using their guidelines but they expect that there would be no increase in the cost of developing any housing units. Nu-West Development Corporation Doubted whether the guidelines increased costs of development. The company spokesman did state that their design guidelines prevent a builder from using cheaper, readily available material that i s a e s t h e t i c a l l y displeasing in favour of higher q u a l i t y materials that may not cost very much more. Genstar Development Company "Our controls are primarily directed to density, open space con-nections, landscaping and external aesthetics which undoubtedly increase the cost of developing housing units, but are r e f l e c t e d to some extent by the sale price of the land." 3.) The t h i r d question t r i e d to determine i f the developers f e l t their design guidelines had any a f f e c t on the municipality's development approval process (ie. Did they speed i t up or slow i t down). Block Brothers The company feels that their design guidelines have no e f f e c t on the development approval process. Carma Developers There i s l i t t l e i f any e f f e c t on the development approval pro-cess. Nu-West Development Corporation They f e l t that i t depended on the size of the project. The spokes-man stated that in several cases design guidelines f a c i l i t a t e d a faster development approval process since the municipality was -138-very much in favour of the p r i n c i p l e s of the guidelines. Their proper use can therefore be seen as a way of preventing protracted and costly debates by the municipal planners and urban design panels. Genstar Development Company "They have no e f f e c t upon the development approval process since we w i l l not s e l l a s i t e to a prospective developer u n t i l we are s a t i s f i e d that their design and density i s acceptable. Our pro-spective customers are aware of this and respond accordingly." 4. ) The fourth question asked the developers to estimate the costs of producing their guidelines. Block Brothers They f e l t that i t cost next to nothing, (estimate - $300.00 -$400.00 in time, research and documentation) Carma Developers "The cost of producing the guidelines are included in our o v e r a l l planning costs and have not been segregated as a separate item." Nu-West Development Corporation Approximately $500.00 in time and e f f o r t . Genstar Development Company Not available 5. ) The f i f t h question asked the developers how they evaluated whether the builder had properly complied with the intentions of their design guidelines (ie. design committees, during and after construction monitoring, and what penalties they enacted should the builder not comply). Block Brothers "Basic a l l y the builder operates on the honour system although we p e r i o d i c a l l y run checks of the development to ensure that the units -139-respect the proper design p r i n c i p l e s . Upon receiving the design guidelines, ;the builder i s asked to sign his name to the following declaration:, "I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the design c r i t e r i a for (name and subdivision), and I agree to abide by them, otherwise Block Bros. Contractors Ltd. may correct any d e f i c i e n c i e s and recover the cost thereof from me." Carma Developers The a r c h i t e c t u r a l control committee that provides the i n i t i a l ap-proval of a builder's plans i s responsible for monitoring the success of the program. Upon completion of construction onsite inspection i s undertaken to ensure that the f i n a l unit complies with the i n i t i a l approval. In a l l our sales agreements a provis-ion i s made for liquidated damages should a builder not conform to the a r c h i t e c t u r a l guidelines. Nu-West Development Corporation A performance Bond Agreement requires that a refundable bond be deposited as security for the performance of a l l obligations. The bond i s in the amount of $500.00. Genstar Development Company Not available. 6.) The sixth question asked the developers about the composi-tion and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of their design panels. Block Brothers The company's design panel consists of two or three in house sales or management employees - no training in architecture or planning. Carma Developers Carma's a r c h i t e c t u r a l control committee consists of the company's D i s t r i c t and,Project Managers as well as designated member of Aplin and Martin Engineering Ltd.'s Planning Department - one -140-professional planner. Nu-West Development Corporation Nu-West's Arc h i t e c t u r a l Committee consists of the Project Manager, an i n t e r i o r decorator and an outside consultant (professional planner). Genstar Development Company Not available. 7.) The seventh question enquired whether the developers use any government generated design guidelines. Block Brothers None. Carma Developers "At the present time our company does not use any government guidelines although subdivisions are normally developed to con-form to C.M.H.C. requirements and naturally the municipal guide-li n e s pertaining to each subdivision are of utmost importance. Nu-West Development Corporation None. Genstar Development Company None. We believe that government can best achieve i t s objectives by encouraging industry to use desing guidelines (note that I say use and not compel). I also believe that government i s not always as e f f e c t i v e as industry in ensuring that "Compact Housing" i s well designed because the r e s t r i c t i o n s on the methods of sale of p u b l i c l y owner properties are more severe than those on the private sector. In other words government has always been obligated to s e l l land to anyone whereas industry can be selective in i t s choice of cus-tomers according to those who maintain a good record of s a t i s f y i n g design and other requirements. -141-8.) The eighth question t r i e d to decipher the developers' a t t i -tudes on what design guidelines should accomplish in housing de-velopments. ; Block Brothers Design guidelines should establish a standard of o v e r a l l value which cannot be downgraded by any one builder. It i s recognized, however, that i t i s not r e a l l y r e a l i s t i c for people to build poor qual i t y housing given the l o t prices in our subdivisions. Carma Developers As outlined in our booklet application of the best design p r i n c i -ples within a subdivision benefit both the builder and the sub-sequent home: owner. The v i s u a l appearance and physical placement of in d i v i d u a l houses and corresponding i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s of ad-jacent groups of houses are of utmost importance in achieving a pleasant environment. Nu-West Development Corporation The purpose of design guidelines i s to ensure the development of a t t r a c t i v e neighbourhoods. Nu-West implements a r c h i t e c t u r a l co-ordination and development guidelines in order to improve the function and appearance of our subdivisions. Genstar Development Company We are proud of the neighbourhoods we develop and we try to en-sure that the town housing and apartments are developed in har-mony with single-family development and are of a s i z e , design and location 1 so as to try to foster community involvement and i n -tegration. Where over-riding design constraints have been i n t r o -duced into a neighbourhood, such as continuity of open space or walkways or access thereto, we try to ensure that these constraints are respected. -142-9.) The ninth and f i n a l question asked the developers i f they f e l t there was s u f f i c i e n t f l e x i b i l i t y in their guidelines to avoid producing standardized designs. Block Brothers In so far as our guidelines relate to s i t i n g , landscaping and exterior f i n i s h e s , we f e e l there i s substantial f l e x i b i l i t y within the guidelines to produce very creative designs. This i s evident in our Locarno Subdivision. Carma Developers Design and planning guidelines should provide the perameters with-in which a builder and his architect can develop housing units. We have always taken the position that the design guidelines sbould not pertain to the i n t e r i o r of the units but only to the exterior elevations and s i t i n g of the unit. Nu-West Development Corporation Our guidelines cover some basic exterior and s i t i n g features which we f e e l contribute to producing a t t r a c t i v e neighbourhoods. Within these regulations the builder i s allowed s i g n i f i c a n t f l e x i -b i l i t y to construct a wide variety of housing s t y l e s . Genstar Development Company Our design controls are primarily directed to density, open space connections, landscaping and external aesthetics and therefore do not regulate housing design or i n t e r i o r arrangements. -143-APPENDIX VI - KM-3 D i s t r i c t Schedule Vertical Angle of Daylight Obstruction: ; In the case of buildings of over 35 feet in height (measured from the finished grade at all points around and adjacent to the building) no part thereof shall pro-ject above lines extending over the site at right angles f rom: (1) A l l points along the ultimate centre line of the street (or streets) in front ! of the site and inclined at an average angle of 25 degrees to the horizontal. (2) A l l points along the rear boundary line of the site or the ultimate centre line of the lane where one has been dedicated, and inclined at an average angle of 25 degrees to the horizontal. (3) A l l points along the interior side boundary (or boundaries) of the site at ground level and inclined at an average angle of 30 degrees to the horizontal. B. Height and Length: On any site the height of a bui lding shall not exceed 120 feet, provided, however, that where any port ion or portions of a bui lding extend above a height of 35 feet, the maximum length of any such port ion or portions combined shall in no case exceed an amount equal to 25 percent of the sum of the average depth of the site and the average width of the site. For purposes of this subsection, where it is proposed to erect a bui lding in two or more parts (towers), a site may be interpreted as two or more sites as the case may be, provided that the area of each such site created is 25,000 square feet or more, and the parts of the bui lding (towers) are not less than 80 feet apart. The height of a bui lding shall be the vertical distance between the finished grades of the site and a hypothetical surface which is parallel to the finished grades of the site. It shall be assumed that the finished grades within the outer walls of the building are formed by straight lines joining contours on the finshed grades at the outer wall of the building. (21/7/64-No. 4119) C. Front Yard: A front yard shall be provided having a depth of not less than 20 feet. D. Side Yards: (1) Side yards shall be provided on each side of the bui lding such that the outer walls o f the bui lding be contained with in 135 degrees horizontal angles subtended from all points along the side property lines, provided however, in no case shall the side yard be less than 7 feet. (2) In the case of a corner site where the side yard adjoins a f lanking street, the above containing angle is not applicable but the side yard shall be 20 percent of the width of the site, provided however, this amount shall be increased by one foot, or fract ion thereof, for every 5 feet by which the highest height of the bui lding exceeds 40 feet (measured as in B above) . but in no case shall it be less than 10 feet nor need it be more than 20 feet. E. Rear Yard: A rear yard shall be provided the min imum depth of which shall be not less than 35 feet, provided however, this amount may be reduced to 25 feet in the fo l lowing cases: ( (1) Where the bui lding abutting the rear yard is not more than 30 feet wide nor less than 25 feet f rom any adjoining site. -144-APPENDIX VII - Zoning & Development By-law Excerpts (9) (a) The Director of Planning may relax the provision of this By-law where, due to condit ions peculiar either to the site or to the proposed development, literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship in any of the fo l -lowing cases: (22/3/66 - No. 4234) (i) Alterat ions or additions to an existing bui ld ing which lacks min imum' yards required by the appropriate distr ict schedule. A n y relaxation in this case shall be with respect to yard requirements only and in no case shall such yard requirements be reduced to less than sixty percent (60%) of the amount specified in the district schedule; (ii) Erect ion of more than one principal bui lding on one site or structural alterations or additions to two or more principal buildings existing on the same site and located in a C or M District; (iii) Erect ion of more than one principal bui lding on one site or structural alterations or additions to two or more principal buildings existing on the same site where such principal buildings consist of town houses or apartment buildings located with in (RS-2), (RT-2) or (RM-1) Dwell ing Districts, and (CRM-2) or (CRM-3) Commercia l/Mult ip le Dwell ing Dis-tricts subject to the arrangement of such principal buildings being satisfactory to the Director of Planning. (24/3/70 - No. 4487) (aa) The Director of Planning may relax the provisions of this By-law relating to: (i) Required setbacks to off-street parking areas where, in the opinion of the Director of Planning, the landscaping provided or to be provided is adequate to warrant such relaxation, provided in a (C-1) Commercial Distr ict or any (R) District, such relaxation shall not permit a land-scaped front setback to be less on the side where the site abuts a site in a (C-1) Commercial Distr ict or any (R) Distr ict than the required f ront yard of such abutting site, tapering to not less than five feet at the side of the parking area abutting a street, lane or site zoned other than as a (C-1). (ii) Required screening on the boundary of a parking area, serving a school, park or similar use on a site in excess of two acres, in cases where the distance between such boundary and (R) Districts outside the site of the principal use served by the parking area, is in excess of 250 feet. ( 1 0 / 1 1 / 6 4 - N o . 4139) (iii) The min imum parking or loading spaces required where, due to condi-tions peculiar either to the site or to the proposed development, literal enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship. (22/3/66 - No. 4234) (b) The Director of Planning, before granting any relaxation, shall be satisfied that any property owner who is l ikely to be adversely affected is notif ied; such not i f icat ion shall be in the form appropriate to the circumstances. If any property owner so notified shall object, then such relaxation shall not be granted, but the applicant for such relaxation may then exercise his right of appeal to the Board of Variance, at which time the representations of the ( Director of Planning and of any such property owner shall be heard. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094678/manifest

Comment

Related Items