Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Urban open space : the effect of objectives and regulations Pringle, Barbara L. 1986

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A8 P75.pdf [ 4.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097167.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097167-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097167-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097167-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097167-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097167-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097167-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097167-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097167.ris

Full Text

U R B A N O P E N S P A C E : T H E E F F E C T OF O B J E C T I V E S A N D R E G U L A T I O N S By B A R B A R A L . P R I N G L E B . L . A . , Universi ty of Toronto, 1981 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF A R T S in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standards T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A Apr i l 1986 c Barbara L . Pringle, 1986 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or pu b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date Ape-it- 3o, wal*. 7Q ^ A B S T R A C T This thesis is focused on one component of the urban environment: open space, specifically open space in the downtown core. Taking the position that supplying adequate and appropriate open space is an important c iv i c responsibility, the thesis investigates the proposition that such open space can be created through the combined effect of urban open space objectives and urban regulations. The proposition is investigated in three parts. Fi rs t , the influence of urban regulations on urban open space development is examined. The regulatory histories of New York 's , San Francisco's and Vancouver's downtown cores are reviewed to identify regulations that have influenced open space. Most attention is given to Vancouver's regulatory history and urban development patterns. In general, the investigation revealed that, while San Francisco defined what constitutes adequate and appropriate urban open space, New York and Vancouver did not. Because of this lack of definition the regulations continued to be developed in response to immediate situations rather than in response to open space objectives. The second part uses the historic shifts in the understanding of open space to identify four fundamental objectives for the development of adequate and appropriate urban open space. The objectives are: open space for public use; open space to shape the urban environment; open space to improve environ-mental quality; and open space as a network. - i i -The third part compares the regulations, identified as influencing open space, with the proposed objectives. This comparision determines how effect ively the regulations achieve the objectives. F ina l ly , a decision-making process is outlined that would enable the narrow and effective actions of the regulations achieve the broad objectives identified for urban open space. The thesis concludes that through the combined effect of urban open space objectives and urban regulations, c i t ies can define adequate and appropriate open space and influence development to create such spaces. - i ia -T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page A B S T R A C T i i T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S i i i LIST OF I L L U S T R A T I O N S v A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T v i C H A P T E R I : INTRODUCTION I 1.1 The Thesis I 1.2 The Thesis Organization 3 1.3 The Definitions 5 C H A P T E R 2 : T H E E F F E C T O F R E G U L A T I O N S O N U R B A N O P E N S P A C E 7 2.1 New York 8 2.2 San Francisco 14 2.3 Vancouver 18 2.4 The Effect of Regulations on Urban Open Space 56 C H A P T E R 3 : T H E DEFINITION O F OBJECTIVES F O R U R B A N O P E N S P A C E 58 3.1 Urban Open Space Concepts 59 3.1.1 Urban Open Space for Public Use 63 3.1.2 Urban Open Space to Shape the Urban Environment 66 3.1.3 Urban Open Space to Improve Environmental Quality 73 3.1.4 Urban Open Space as a Network 76 3.2 Urban Open Space Objectives 79 - i i i -T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S (continued) Page C H A P T E R 4 : T H E E F F E C T O F T H E O B J E C T I V E S A N D T H E R E G U L A T I O N S O N U R B A N O P E N S P A C E 81 4.1 The Current Effect of the Objectives on the Regulations 81 4.2 The Potent ia l Effect of the Objectives on the Regulations 92 C H A P T E R 5 : C O N C L U S I O N S 97 5.1 Implications for Planning 99 5.2 Future Study 100 B I B L I O G R A P H Y 101 A P P E N D I X I D O W N T O W N V A N C O U V E R R E G U L A T O R Y SYSTEM'S H I S T O R Y 104 A P P E N D I X II S T U D Y A R E A D E V E L O P M E N T D A T E S 107 - iv -LIST O F ILLUSTRATIONS Page F I G U R E 2.1 U R B A N P A T T E R N / / I 100% SITE C O V E R A G E 10 F I G U R E 2.2 U R B A N P A T T E R N #2 TOWERS IN P L A Z A S 12 M A P 2.3 S T U D Y A R E A 19 M A P 2.4 O P E N S P A C E 21 M A P 2.5 D E V E L O P M E N T B Y R E G U L A T O R Y P E R I O D 22 M A P 2.6 1886-1928 I N C O R P O R A T I O N 25 M A P 2.7 1928-1956 T H E FIRST Z O N I N G B Y L A W S 31 M A P 2.8 1956-1975 T H E Z O N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T B Y L A W 38 M A P 2.9 1975 T H E D O W N T O W N DISTRICT O F F I C I A L D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N 46 M A P 2.10 1979 T H E C E N T R A L W A T E R F R O N T O F F I C I A L D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N 54 F I G U R E 3.1 T H E C O N T I N U U M 67 F I G U R E 3.2 T H E W A L L E D C I T Y 68 F I G U R E 3.3 T H E TIGHT R E L A T I O N S H I P 69 F I G U R E 3.4 T H E TOWER IN T H E P A R K 70 F I G U R E 3.5 THE L O O S E R E L A T I O N S H I P 71 - v -A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T I would like to thank Henry Hightower, Kaye Mell iship, Brian Perry, Moura Quayle, Eleanor Sleath and Brahm Wiesman for helping me complete this thesis. - vi -C H A P T E R I INTRODUCTION I.I T H E THESIS Open spaces: The sidewalks, squares, parks, boulevards, plazas, malls and left-over spaces are v i ta l components of the urban environment. Lawrence Halpr in , in his book Ci t ies , describes their importance: it al l starts with the basic urban open spaces which give a c i ty its character; the spaces within which its life takes place . . . these set the tone of the c i ty , in fact, establish the qualities and character of its presence. (Halprin 1972, p. 7) Within a c i ty the open spaces are accessible to a l l ; they comprise the public components of the urban environment. The open spaces offer special potential for use; they are the places where people meet, socialize and recreate. The open spaces combine with the built form to shape the urban environment. They also provide habitats for other forms of life enabling the natural environment to enter the urban environment. F ina l ly the open spaces contain the pedestrian c i rcula t ion network providing connections between where people are and where they want to be. Insuring the provision of adequate and appropriate open space is an important c iv i c responsibility. Ye t ci t ies have l imited their role in open space develop-ment. These l imitat ions are pr imari ly due to lack of vision and lack of resources. Most c i t ies have not commit ted the necessary effort to define or real ize adequate and appropriate open space. •• - I -Without a clear definit ion of urban open space, in most c i t ies , it has been left to zoning regulations to provide for the development of open space. Generally, the influence of these regulations have been either direct or indirect. Di rec t influences are the results of regulations intended to control open space development. Indirect influences are the results of regulations, intended to control another aspect of the urban environment, that indirectly controls the development of open space. For example, in 1961 New York adopted regulations to st imulate the development of plazas (Barnett 1982, p. 113). By stimulating plaza development these regulations direct ly influenced urban open space, whereas the first zoning ordinance, adopted by New York in 1916, exerted an indirect influence. The 1916 ordinance included bulk controls that allowed development to cover 100% of the site (Barnett 1982, p. 61). These controls indirectly restr icted open space to the public sidewalk. Typical ly the influence of regulations on open space can be characterized by their narrow focus and uniform results. The 1961 New York plaza regulations stimulated the development of many similar plazas but did nothing to affect the development of other forms of open space. Generally, the motivating factors behind the adoption of regulations have not been the development of adequate and appropriate open space. Instead many of the regulations were adopted to counteract the perceived i l l effects of previous regulations. The 1961 New York plaza regulations were for example, adopted to increase the amount of open space that had been l imited to the sidewalks by the 1916 zoning ordinance. - 2 -The effect of regulations alone is not enough to achieve the development of adequate and appropriate open space. The primary deficiency of the regulations, is the failure to define what constitutes adequate and appropriate open space. Without this definit ion, regulations continue to be developed in response to immediate situations, rather than in response to the wel l considered goal. Adequate and appropriate open space should be developed through the open space planning process. Through this process the goal is set, objectives that define the goal are identified, and regulations aimed at achieving the objectives are developed. The planning process enables the otherwise narrow and uniform regulations to be used to achieve the identified open space objectives. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to investigate the proposition that: T H E D E V E L O P M E N T OF A D E Q U A T E A N D A P P R O P R I A T E O P E N S P A C E R E Q U I R E S T H E C O M B I N E D E F F E C T OF U R B A N O P E N S P A C E O B J E C T I V E S A N D U R B A N R E G U L A T I O N S . 1.2 THESIS O R G A N I Z A T I O N This thesis into the effect of objectives and regulations on urban open space development focuses on the downtown core, where both the demand for open space and the influence of regulations is intense. - 3 -Chapter I : I N T R O D U C T I O N Asserts that the development of adequate and appropriate urban open space requires the combined effect of open space objectives and regulations. Chapter 2 : T H E E F F E C T O F T H E R E G U L A T I O N S O N U R B A N O P E N S P A C E Investigates the effect of regulations on urban open space development. The regulatory histories of New York 's , San Francisco's and Vancouver's downtown cores are reviewed to identify regulations that have influenced open space. From this review, the type of regulation, the motivation for adopting the regulation and the influence of the regulation on open space development are determined. Through this process the current effect of regulation on urban open space development is identified. Chapter 3 : T H E DEFINITION O F OBJECTIVES F O R U R B A N O P E N S P A C E Defines adequate and appropriate open space, and expresses that definit ion as a series of fundamental objectives for the develop-ment of urban open space. This is done by reviewing the history of urban open space to identify fundamental shifts in the under-standing of urban open space. This understanding is then used to generate modern open space objectives. Chapter 4 : T H E E F F E C T O F T H E OBJECTIVES A N D T H E R E G U L A T I O N S O N U R B A N O P E N S P A C E Compares the regulations identified in Chapter 2, as influencing open space, with the proposed objectives. This comparison determines how effect ively the regulations achieve the objectives. F ina l ly , a decision-making process is outlined that would enable the regulations to achieve the open space objectives. Chapter 5 : C O N C L U S I O N Concludes that the development of adequate and appropriate open space requires the combined effect of urban open space objectives and urban regulations. 1.3 T H E DEFINITIONS Urban Environment encompasses both urban form and urban function. Urban form incorporates the spatial arrangement of the c i ty , while urban function incorporates its economic, social and pol i t ica l functions. This study is pr imari ly concerned with urban form. Urban form is made up of two components: open space and built form. These two components combine with the forces of urban function to create the complex relationships of the urban environment. Urban Open Space incorporates a l l space that is open to the sky and accessible to the general public in the urban environment. While a park fcs the most obvious example, open space encompasses more than just parks. The long list of - 5 -urban open spaces also includes sidewalks, alleys, squares, parks, boulevards, avenues, malls, plazas and left-over spaces. Urban Regulations includes a l l the mechanisms c i ty governments use to control or influence the physical development of c i t ies . Zoning was one of the f irst and is s t i l l the most pervasive mechanism. Urban regulations exercise public control over the use and development of private property, they represent a method for achieving specific public interests through the development of private property. Urban Planning is the process through which c i ty governments mediate the competing interests of the developer, the c i ty , and the public, in urban development. As a process, planning incorporates a number of c r i t i ca l steps: determining a goal; setting objectives that define the goal; and develop-ing mechanisms, including regulations, aimed at achieving the objectives. F ina l ly , the process and the results of the process are reviewed. Through urban planning, c i ty governments influence private development in the public interest. - 6 -C H A P T E R 2 T H E E F F E C T O F R E G U L A T I O N S O N U R B A N O P E N S P A C E The purpose of this chapter is to investigate the influence of urban regulations on open space. To discover what regulations have influenced urban open space, the regulatory histories of New York 's , San Francisco's and Vancouver's downtown cores are reviewed. From this review the type of regulation, the motivation for adopting the regulation, and the effects of the regulation on open space are determined. New York, San Francisco and Vancouver were chosen for study for a number of reasons. Both New York and San Francisco are recognized leaders in urban development and urban regulation innovation. Their regulatory histories are documented and available for study. The sections on New York and San Francisco are general reviews derived from secondary sources. The opportunity for primary research is used to assess the effect of regulations on open space in Vancouver. This section relies on the records of the Vancouver Planning Department and is a study of a prototypical area in the downtown core. Taken together, these three investigations provide general information on the influence of regulation on open space for two ci t ies and specific examples of that influence for one. Urban regulations encompass a l l the mechanisms c i ty governments have used to control or influence their physical development. Regulations exercise public - 7 -control over the use and development of property. They represent a method of accommodating the public and private interests in the development of private property. Al l en Fonoroff, in the book The New Zoning; Legal , Adminis t ra t ive ,  and Economic Concepts and Techniques, describes the function of regulations as "to solve diff icul t land use and development problems in furtherance of community objectives within the constitutional guarantees of a democrat ic society" (Fonoroff 1970, p. 82). The first mechanism designed to regulate urban development that was widely adopted in North A m e r i c a was zoning (Hason 1977, p. I). Originally zoning attempted to restr ict land use and dictate built form. Over t ime communities refined their urban regulations to do more, to encourage and influence development. Thus, the early zoning controls evolved into complex techniques and procedures that comprise modern urban regulations. 2.1 N E W Y O R K F r o m the review of the regulatory history of New York 's downtown core, two distinct forms of open space regulation are evident: I. fixed controls, and 2. fixed plaza controls. I. Fixed Controls, The first comprehensive zoning ordinance was adopted by New York in 1916 (Barnett 1982, p. 61). The early controls established zones, and within each zone regulations specified the size and shape_x>f buildings plus their use. These regulations allowed development 'as of right', or without - 8 -the need for individualized administrative review. The idea impl ic i t in these early controls was development according to standards stated in the controls. As Jan Krasnowiecki says early zoning "assumes that most, if not a l l , develop-ment w i l l occur under the pre-established rules" (Krasnowiecki 1970, p. 3). Within early zoning controls a minimum of administrative f lexibi l i ty was necessary. The variance mechanism provided that l imited f lexib i l i ty (Babcock 1966, p. 6). Variance is permission to be exempt from the established standards. Therefore, within the early zoning system, developments either complied fully with the control or they were granted variance and were exempt from some of the control . New York 's 1916 zoning ordinance permitted the building to cover 100% of the site at ground level (Barnett 1982, p. I 13). The result of this regulation was to l imi t urban open space to the public sidewalks. The 1916 controls also sought to "impose a minimum standard of light and air for streets, which part icularly in lower Manhattan, had become increasingly dark and canyon like as buildings grew taller and tal ler" (Barnett 1982, p. 61). To achieve that goal, the regulations specified height and bulk controls that l imited building size and dictated building shape. They imposed setbacks on buildings above a certain height. These regulations l imited the height a building could rise, in proportion to the width of the street it fronted on, before it had to set back. A s development continued under these regulations a character is t ic urban pattern emerged. This pattern was comprised of development after develop-- 9 -merit built to the allowed 100% site coverage (Figure 2.1). The only breaks in the pattern were window wells and service entrances. Urban open space was l imited to the public sidewalks and the occasional urban park (Whyte 1981, p. 24). m I r~ I r F I G U R E 2.1 U R B A N P A T T E R N //1 100% SITE C O V E R A G E 2. F ixed P l a z a Controls . Two factors influenced the second form of urban open space regulation. The first was the growing demand for urban open space that could not be met through the early 100% site coverage controls (Barnett 1982, p. I 13). The second was the rise in popularity of the modern movement in architecture. This movement, inspired by L e Corbusier's vision of the tower in the park, had a tremendous impact on urban form (Evenson 1969, p. 8). These two factors resulted in the incorporation of fixed plaza controls into the urban regulations. In 1961, New York 's zoning regulations were completely revised (Barnett 1982, p. 72). This revision introduced a series of new regulatory tools including the floor area ratio and the sky exposure plane. The floor area ratio, the ratio of building to lot size, was designed to regulate building bulk. The sky exposure plane was introduced to l imi t building height. These tools replaced the setback regulations of the 1916 controls (Barnett 1982, p. I 13). One major goal of the revision was to create more urban open space. To accomplish this goal, the regulations offered a bonus of an increase in the permitted floor area of up to 20% with the provision of a plaza (Barnett 1982, p. 113). For each square foot of plaza space, the developer was allowed 10 feet of additional floor area (Whyte 1980, p. I 12). As originally enacted this zoning mechanism did not contain a detailed description of the plaza's necessary design features; the major requirements were that the plaza be open to the sky and accessible to the public at al l t imes. Developments influenced by these controls exhibit a character is t ic pattern of towers set in plazas. A s urban developments continued under these regulations the earlier urban pattern dictated by the 1916 zoning regulations was inter-rupted by the new developments, and a different urban pattern emerged (Figure 2.2). - I I -— - 11 i r F I G U R E 2.2 U R B A N P A T T E R N #2 TOWERS IN P L A Z A S Jonathan Barnett , urban designer with the C i t y of New York for many years, describes the effect of these regulations as: One of the most widely used features of New York 's 1961 zoning resolution...because the plaza is obtainable 'as of right' there has been no way to direct or control its use...the first plaza on an avenue is a welcome relief; by the t ime there are f ive, the spaces they create seem confused and irregular. (Barnett 1970, p. 127) The desire expressed above, by Barnett , to have more effective control over urban development resulted in the amendment of the 1961 zoning ordinance. In 1975 New York amended the 1961 zoning ordinance to require that plazas, developed under the bonus provisions be "amenable as well as accessible to the public" (Whyte 1980, p. 112). The amendment was in the form of specific guidelines to influence plaza development. These specified: size, location (on the site) and shape requirements; minimum seating; openness to the sidewalk; maximum elevation; tree planting; lighting and handicapped access. Re ta i l and service uses were required adjacent to plazas to generate pedestrian act iv i t ies (Cook 1980, p. 88). This review of New York 's downtown regulatory history identifies two distinct forms of regulations that influenced urban open space. In the f irs t , fixed controls exerted an indirect influence on open space from 1916 to 1961. These controls effect ively l imited open space to the public sidewalks. In the second, fixed plaza controls exerted a direct influence on open space from 1961 onwards. These controls encouraged the development of urban plazas and before their amendment in 1975 a large number of similar plazas were developed. Both forms of regulations had a narrow focus and within that focus were extremely effect ive. Original ly , the fixed controls were adopted to protect environmental quality. The fixed plaza controls were adopted to solve the problems created by the 1916 fixed controls. The 1975 amendment was adopted to correct the deficiencies of the 1961 controls. This chain of events illustrates that the motivation for adopting controls was not influenced by a general understanding of open space. Instead, the motivat ion was reactionary. The new controls were adopted to correct the perceived i l l effects of the earlier controls. The review indicates that while over t ime the regulations were pltered, the basic approach, of regulations acting without expl ici t open space objectives, - 13 -remained unchanged. The influence of the regulations can be characterized by a narrow focus and uniform interpretation. 2.2 S A N F R A N C I S C O From the c r i t i ca l review of the regulatory history of San Francisco's downtown core, three distinct approaches to regulation and open space are evident: I. early controls; 2. fixed plaza controls; and 3. open space planning. 1. Early Controls. The first zoning ordinance was adopted by San Francisco in 1921 (Cook 1980, p. 134). These regulations concentrated on restrict ing land use in residential areas and did not influence the size or density of downtown buildings. Therefore, the early regulations exerted no influence on the development of urban open space in the downtown core. 2. Fixed Plaza Controls. In I960 San Francisco adopted a c i ty wide zoning ordinance establishing height and bulk l imits for the downtown core, however these regulations were so generous they had no effect (Halpern 1978, p. 162). In I 968 these regulations were amended. The amended regulations included a bonus system for plazas, similar to New York 's 1961 plaza regulations. In the bonus regulations plazas were defined as publicly accessible open space at the base of buildings. Under this system developments providing plazas were granted additional floor area. Each square foot of plaza was credited with 6, 8 or 10 square feet of additional building space, depending on the zoning dis t r ic t , - 14 -up to a maximum of 15% above the outright allowable floor area ratio (Ci ty and County of San Francisco 1983, p. 50). The C i ty of San Francisco describes the plazas that were developed under these controls as: only marginally useful because they are either inaccessible, are sited in the shadows of buildings, and/or lack seating or other amenities that make people feel welcome and comfortable. (Ci ty and County of San Francisco 1983, p. 50) 3. Urban Open Space Planning. As the pace and complexity of urban development increased the pressure for f lex ib i l i ty in the interpretation of fixed regulations also increased. Michael Heyman describes planners as: Recognizing that regulations...cannot intelligently cope with the problems or maximize on the opportunities presented by contempor-ary urban physical development, and that regulatory devices which more individually and sensitively treat part icular development pro-posals are necessary. (Heyman I 970, p. 42) With this increasing demand for f lexibi l i ty the emphasis shifted from a fixed set of regulations, towards a planning approach. San Francisco produced the Downtown Plan in 1983. The Plan was prepared in response to "public concern over the degree of change occurring downtown" (Ci ty and County of San Francisco 1983, p. I). The Plan includes a major section on downtown open space, stating: Past policies produced open space in an unplanned fashion, and in many cases, open space of unsatisfactory quality was provided. This P lan approaches open space in a more comprehensive and systematic way and establishes guidelines to ensure the quality of future open space. (Ci ty and County of San Francisco 1983, p. 50) To overcome these identified deficiencies, the Downtown Plan outlines three major open space objectives. They are: - 15 -1. Provide quality open space in sufficient quantity and variety to meet the needs of downtown workers, residents and visi tors. 2. Create an open space system accessible to and usable by everyone downtown. 3. Provide contrast and form by consciously treating open space as a counterpoint to the built environment. (Ci ty and County of San Francisco 1983, pp. 55-58) The Plan supports these objectives with a series of policies and implements the policies through the actions of regulations. The f irst objective is supported by policies which set standards for human comfort in the design of open spaces by minimizing wind and maximizing sunshine. This objective is also supported by a system that classifies the various open space components necessary to meet the needs of downtown San Francisco . The second objective is supported by policies that define accessible and usable. In this case proximity is identified as the key variable. A n inventory of San Francisco's downtown open spaces was undertaken to identify areas deficient in open space. The third objective is reinforced by policies that influence the location of open space in order to create "dist inctive openings in the downtown's otherwise dominant s t reetwal l" (Ci ty and County of San Francisco 1983, p. 58). The objective is reinforced by policies that introduce elements of the natural landscape, such as vegetation and water, into the downtown core. - 16 -The comprehensive and systematic approach of the Plan to urban open space development is illustrated by Proposit ion K which was one of a series of regulations adopted to implement the open space objectives. Under the first objective, solar access was identified as one of the environmental factors c r i t i c a l to maintaining human comfort levels. This factor was translated into Proposit ion K , which states: C i t y owned parks and open spaces are now protected by Proposit ion K which prohibits the C i t y from issuing a building permit authoriz-ing construction of any structure exceeding 40 feet in height that would shade any property under the jurisdict ion of, or designated for acquisit ion by, the Recrea t ion and Park Commission. Construct ion that would shade these properties from between one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset could not be permit ted, unless it is determined that the impact on the use of the property would be insignificant. (C i ty and County of San Francisco 1985, p . 64) Therefore, Proposit ion K ensures that public open space wi l l have adequate solar access. In 1985, San Francisco produced the Recrea t ion and Open Space Plan , which incorporates the open space section of the Downtown Plan into a c i ty wide open space plan. The two documents represent the most systematic and compre-hensive treatment of urban open space development found in the three c i t ies examined. This review of San Francisco's downtown regulatory history identifies three distinct approaches to open space regulation. In the first, the early controls were so generous that they exerted no influence on open space from 1921 to 1968. In the second, the fixed plaza controls exerted a direct influence on open space from 1968 to 1983. These controls, which were similar to New York 's , - 17 -exerted tremendous influence on open space development. Indeed, the influence of these controls was so great that their effect, in part, provided the motivation for abandoning the existing regulation based approach and replacing it with the planning based approach. In the third approach, urban open space planning was adopted in 1983. This review indicates that the regulatory approach was replaced with the planning approach in 1983. The planning approach is character ized by a r t i cu-lated open space objectives and regulations aimed at achieving the objectives. 2.3 V A N C O U V E R Investigating the influence of Vancouver's downtown regulations on the develop-ment of downtown open space involves reviewing the regulatory history and investigating open space development. F rom the review of Vancouver's downtown regulatory history five dist inct periods are evident. The first begins in 1886 with the incorporation of Vancouver. The second begins in 1928 with the adoption of the first zoning bylaws. The third starts in 1956 with the adoption of the Zoning and Development Bylaw. The fourth starts in 1974 with the adoption of the Downtown Dis t r i c t Of f i c i a l Development P lan . The fif th and latest period begins in 1979 wi th the adoption of the Centra l Waterfront Of f ic ia l Development P lan . For a detailed outline of downtown Vancouver's regulatory system history see Appendix I. - 18 -To investigate open space development a representative study area there within the downtown core has been selected, as shown on Map 2.3. M A P 2.3 S T U D Y A R E A The northern boundary follows the harbour's edge. The southern boundary of Georgia Street was expanded to include the Pac i f i c Centre and the Court House A r t Gal lery Complex. The eastern boundary of Granvi l le Street was expanded to include the Hudson's Bay Company's building. The western boundary follows Thurlow Street. Within this area are examples of urban open space develop-ment that occurred under the five regulatory periods outlined above. Map 2A O P E N S P A C E indicates the open space within the study area. Map 2.5 D E V E L O P M E N T B Y R E G U L A T O R Y P E R I O D indicates the developments by regulatory period. For a detailed review of the developments within the study area see Appendix II. The following discussion of urban open space development, urban regulation and their relationship is presented under the five regulatory periods outlined above. Each of the periods is discussed under two headings, urban regulation and urban open space. - 20 -1 310333 *C4l H G i i n E o r a a m Kb • y c HI n Pendg.r St. ran •4 I P n Purtsmuir* St. n a o z • 1 W i n . 1 3 C P = r-J I1 Kgb»gn ST. Smiths ST. M A P 2.4 O P E N S P A C E 2! -BBS E E E 1 C P r — —J • 1 J t_' I IT 1920 ~ I95£ I95£~I97^ l&i&l 1975 I^97e> 1 I Irr^rtwlkri n e t ^ i L i t U . M A P 2.5 - 22 -D E V E L O P M E N T B Y R E G U L A T O R Y PERIOD 1886-1928 I N C O R P O R A T I O N Urban Regulations. When Vancouver was incorporated as a c i ty in 1886, development was almost completely unregulated. While there was a series of building bylaws, there were no regulations that dictated urban form or controlled land use downtown (Ci ty of Vancouver 1963, p. I). Urban Open Space. As indicated on Map 2.6 - 1886-1928 I N C O R P O R A T I O N , fourteen developments within the study area date from this period. These developments fal l into two categories, pr ivate or public developments. The private developments include the Hudson's Bay Company, the Georgia Hotel and the Cred i t Foncier building. Without exception these developments were built to the lot lines. Stepping back from the lot lines occurred only to allow light into the interior of the buildings, or servicing at the back of the buildings. Another character is t ic of these developments was their carefully art iculated front facades. These front facades add visual interest and human scale to the developments. The public developments include the Court House, Chr is t Church Cathedral and the Old Post Off ice . Two examples within this group, the Court House and Chr i s t Church Cathedral , were developed in the middle of their lots, wel l back of the lot lines. This character is t ic form of development resulted in the creat ion of urban open space. These spaces were landscaped and incorporated - 23 -into the public realm, where the open space acts as a symbol to reinforce the public use of the developments. In this period urban regulations were l imi ted to building bylaws. These bylaws made no reference to urban open space. Therefore, the existing regulations had no influence on the development of urban open space. - 2 4 -Cordova St. PHOT frr^df mora ^ ^ ^ J ' d c T O O o C P 1 ? 4 Smith* sr. M A P 2.6 1886 - 1928 I N C O R P O R A T I O N 25 1928-1956 T H E FIRST Z O N I N G B Y L A W S Urban Regulations. Vancouver and the surrounding municipali t ies became interested in zoning controls in the 1920's. In 1921, Point Grey was the first municipali ty in Canada to adopt a simple but comprehensive zoning bylaw. South Vancouver adopted an almost identical one in 1924 (Hulchanski 1979, p. 4). In Vancouver, the Town Planning Commission was established by C i t y Counci l in 1926. The Commission was authorized to assist Counci l in an advisory capaci ty regarding the adoption and future amendments of a c i ty plan and zoning bylaw (Hulchanski 1979, p. 4). That same year the Commission hired Harland Bartholomew and Associates, C i t y Planners and Landscape Engineers from St. Louis , Missouri , to prepare a master plan for the C i t y (Bartholomew I 928, p. 10). As Arthur G . Smith, Chairman of the Town Planning Commission, stated in the introduction to A Plan For the C i t y of Vancouver: People began to strive to form an idea of Vancouver as a unit and to study the layout of the C i t y with the intention of forming an opinion as to whether the structure is f i t ted to adequately carry out the function of a metropolitan centre. (Bartholomew 1928, p. 24) In February, 1927, Vancouver adopted the inter im zoning bylaw #1830 and established the Zoning 3oard of Appeal (Hulchanski 1979, p. 5). The interim controls were largely to prevent the intrusion of apartment houses into the single or two family residential areas. Three distr icts were outlined in the - 26 -regulations: i) one and two family dis t r ic ts ; ii) apartment dis t r ic ts ; and ii i) unrestricted dis tr ic ts . In the first two distr icts , the size of yards was regulated, but no provision was made for the res t r ic t ion of building height. In the unrestricted distr icts no regulations of any kind were outlined (Bartholomew 1928, p. 21 I). In 1928, A Plan For the C i t y of Vancouver was completed by Harland Bartholomew and Associates. Walter Hardwick, in his book Vancouver, sum-marized the Plan as ca l l ing for: A core-orientated, sectorally-segregated, radially organized c i t y . This built naturally on the established patterns in Vancouver, and was consistent with the main academic and professional views of the t ime. (Hardwick I 974, p. 27) The Plan was not of f ic ia l ly adopted. However, a new consolidated zoning bylaw, based on the Plan's recommendations was. This bylaw replaced the in ter im zoning bylaw #1830 (Ci ty of Vancouver 1981a, p. 6). In 1929, the three municipali t ies of Point Grey, South Vancouver and Vancouver amalgamated to form the C i t y of Vancouver. The zoning bylaw was updated and became bylaw #2516 to incorporate this change in 1930 (Ci ty of Vancouver 1981a, p . 5). The scope of bylaw #2516 was expressed in its preamble: A bylaw to regulate and restr ict the location and use of buildings and the use of land within the C i t y of Vancouver; to l imi t the height and bulk of buildings; to prescribe the size of yards and other open spaces and maximize density of population and for these purposes to divide the C i t y into dis t r ic ts . (Bartholomew I 928, p. 220) - 27 -Under this bylaw the three dis tr icts of inter im bylaw #1830 were expanded into ten dis tr ic ts . In each of the ten dis tr icts complete regulations were provided, control l ing use, height, size of yards and density. The entire downtown core, including the study area, was designated General Business D i s t r i c t . In this d is t r ic t , the most intensive use of property was permit ted. A l l types of commercia l uses, warehouses, and many types of industrial uses were allowed 'as of right'. Buildings could be built up to the lot lines as no front, rear or side yards were required except for residential premises (Ci ty of Vancouver 1981a, p. 6). A complex set of height to air space requirements were adopted control l ing the bulk and mass of downtown develop-ments. The bylaw stated: On a street 80 feet or more in width...above 120 feet in height the super structure of one-third of the base area must be set back one foot for every three feet of height...on a 66 foot street a building can be erected to 99 feet and above a similar setback is required. (Bartholomew 1928, p. 229) Under these regulations, buildings were allowed to cover 100% of the site up to a height of one and a half times the width of the street. Above that height the building was required to set back in proportion to their height. The maximum height allowed was two and a half times the street width (Ci ty of Vancouver 1981a, p. 16). These regulations were intended to l imi t the negative effects of development on downtown streets. As stated in A Plan For the C i t y of Vancouver, "in preparing the setback regulations, careful studies were made as to the possible amount of sunlight reaching the street surface" (Bartholomew 1928, p. 229). The setback regulations adopted in Vancouver show the influence of the 1916 New York zoning ordinance. - 28 -Under Vancouver's first zoning bylaws, the regulations were fixed; there was l i t t le opportunity for administrat ive f l ex ib i l i ty . The only exemption from the controls was through the Zoning Board of Appeal , which had the power to modify the regulations in special circumstances. Urban Open Space. As shown on Map 2.7 - 1928-1956 THE FIRST Z O N I N G B Y L A W S , six developments within the study area date from this period. Three of the most significant are the Hotel Vancouver, the Georgia Medical Building and the Marine Building. Developments from this period are built to the lot lines. Any exceptions to this form are to accommodate light and servicing into the building. Therefore, urban open space is l imited to the public sidewalks. Two of the developments, the Hote l Vancouver and the Marine Building, exhibit the character is t ic form inspired by the setback regulations adopted first by New York and later by Vancouver. The 1961 New York zoning ordinance influenced both urban regulations and architectural s tyle; in fact, the character is t ic setback form dictated by the controls became a popular archi tectural style. F rom the documentation available, in Vancouver, it is dif f icul t to determine whether this same type of form exhibited in the Hotel Vancouver and the Marine Building was a direct response to the urban regulations in force in Vancouver or to the prevailing archi tectural style, popularized by the New York regulations. However, Vancouver's urban regulations did have an impact on the form of open space. - 2 9 -The 100% allowable site coverage enabled the buildings to occupy the entire site and restricted open space to the public sidewalks. - 30 -r o lxfbt»on ST. C P Smiths sr. ra f=q i—| | — n i — I n M A P 2.7 1928 - 1956 T H E FIRST Z O N I N G B Y L A W S -31 -1956-1974 T H E Z O N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T B Y L A W Urban Regulations. Fol lowing a proposal from the Planning Commission, Vancouver C i t y Counci l established the Planning Department and the Technical Planning Board in 1952 (Ci ty of Vancouver 1981a, p. 14). The Planning Department was made responsible for the administration of the zoning bylaw. With the establishment of the Planning Department, "it became obvious that the legal and administrat ive framework of the 1928 Zoning bylaw was inadequate to cope effect ively with the changing c i ty" (Ci ty of Vancouver 1963, p. 2). In 1956, C i t y Counci l adopted the new Zoning and Development Bylaw #3575. As described by the C i t y , in the General Explanatory Memorandum; Zoning and Development Bylaw #3575, the bylaw: embodied most of the modern techniques known at the time.. . the name of the bylaw has been expanded from Zoning to Zoning and Development Bylaw in view of its positive rather than negative approach to the control of development. (Ci ty of Vancouver I 963, p. 2) Bylaw #3575 brought a number of innovative techniques to Vancouver. The bylaw introduced the development permit system. This system required any development, including the addition to or al terat ion of structures, to have a permit indicating compliance with the zoning bylaw. The bylaw also expanded the variety and scope of conditional use. Condit ional use was not specif ical ly allowed 'as of right 1 in the bylaw, but subject to the approval of the Technical Planning Board. The bylaw also defined permit ted use rather than prohibited - 3 2 -use as earl ier bylaws had. The bylaw established a floor space ratio to control bulk. The bylaw also established comprehensive development zones. Within these zones urban regulations could be specif ical ly tai lored to meet the Ci ty ' s goals. These innovations, embodied in the Zoning and Development Bylaw, were intended to: ensure greater f lex ib i l i ty in zoning control than is otherwise possible through extensive provisions for the granting of conditional uses and relaxations of the Bylaw where considered appropriate. (Ci ty of Vancouver 1963, p. 2) Under bylaw #3575 the ten dis t r ic ts of the previous bylaw #2516 were expanded to 22 zoning dis tr ic ts . The General Business Dis t r i c t , regulating downtown development, was replaced by the (CM-1) Commerc ia l Dis t r i c t Schedule. The height and bulk regulations remained generally unchanged from those permit ted under the earlier bylaw, and no floor space ratio was specified for this dis t r ic t schedule (Ci ty of Vancouver 1981a, p. 15). The regulations influencing open space development were, therefore, the same as under the previous bylaw #2516. In 1957, Vancouver's high density office and shoping core, including most of the study area was rezoned (CM-2) Commerc ia l Dis t r i c t Schedule. This rezoning did not alter the regulations influencing open space, and developments covering 100% of the site were s t i l l permit ted. A 'Zoning Plan for the Downtown Area ' was presented to C i t y Counci l in 1961, which included bonus provisions. Under the provisions, developments that included a specified amenity could earn an increase in the allowable density. - 33 -One amenity bonus listed was the 'open area 1 bonus, described in the plan as, "area left open at ground level in the form of an open plaza. . .visible and/or accessible to the general public on the street" (Ci ty of Vancouver 1961, p . 14). However, this study was not adopted by the C i t y C o u n c i l . Bylaw #3575 underwent one amendment that influenced open space develop-ment. By 1968 the Technical Planning Board had permission to approve buildings that were at variance with the existing controls after reviewing: The amount of open space, views, plazas, pedestrian needs and interests, the height and bulk of the building, and its location in relation" to the site surrounding streets and buildings, the effect on t raf f ic , the provision of off-street parking and loading, its overal l design, and the general amenity desired for the Downtown A r e a . (Ci ty of Vancouver 1969, p. 146) This amendment enabled the Technical Planning Board to exert some influence over open space development, and was the first step in developing the negotiation process that was later incorporated into the Off ic ia l Development Plans. Unl ike both New York and San Francisco, Vancouver did not adopt specific plaza bonus legislation in the downtown core. Urban Open Space. As shown on Map 2.8 - 1956-1975 T H E Z O N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T B Y L A W , twenty-one developments within the study area were developed in this period. Three large projects, Pac i f i c Centre , Granvi l le Square and the Cour t House A r t Gal lery Complex, were developed outside the established zoning bylaws, under specially controlled comprehensive develop-ment zones. - 34 -Pac i f i c Centre , begun in 1969, is a two-block project incorporating the 30-storey Toronto Dominion Bank building, the Eaton's Department Store, the 18-storey I . B . M . Building, the Four Seasons Ho te l , two urban plazas and, below grade, the Pac i f i c Centre Mal l (Kalman 1978, p. 81). The open space in this project is l imi ted to the two urban plazas which are connected by the public sidewalks. Granvi l le Square, begun in 1971, was the first phase of a large waterfront redevelopment cal led Project 200. This phase included a 32-storey office tower and large urban plaza jutt ing over and above the Vancouver harbour (Kalman 1978, p. 87). The subsequent phases of this project were not developed. The Court House A r t Gal lery Complex, begun in 1974, is a three-block project incorporating the Provinc ia l Law Courts , Provinc ia l Government offices and the Vancouver A r t Gal lery (Kalman 1978, p. 104). Uni t ing the project is a unique public open space which begins at grade on Robson Street, cl imbs two levels and descends to grade again at Smithe Street. With the exception of the Court House A r t Gal lery Complex, most of the developments in this period, within the study area, follow the tower in the plaza model. Typica l ly , the developments were glass and concrete towers that rose 25 to 35 storeys above paved urban plazas. Three such projects, that were developed in contravention of the zoning bylaw #3575, but with Technical Planning 3oard approval, were the 3enta l l Towers I and 2 and Oceania P laza . - 3 5 -3ento.ll I was one of the first tower in the plaza to be developed in Vancouver. This project, begun in 1965, includes a 21-storey office tower, interconnected car park and open plaza . The Town Planning Commission in a report dated February 19, I 965, discussed this project. The report stated: The proposed office tower does not conform to the regulations of the existing C M - 2 Dis t r i c t Schedule.. . total height of the building 271.0' is greater than maximum permit ted height of 248.5'...and the design of the building does not step back as the height increases (Ci ty of Vancouver f i le #33926). The report however, concluded that the building should be approved for development because it was, "in keeping with the height and bulk concepts that would be proposed in the revised bylaw regulations for Downtown development" (Ci ty of Vancouver file #33926). The proposed 1961 revisions referred to above were never adopted. Phase 2 of the Benta l l development was begun in 1967 and included a tower similar to the one in Bental l I. In a let ter , dated August 16, 1967, to W.E . Graham, Direc tor of Planning, Dominion Construct ion, the developers, state: With the completed development we wi l l have approximately 76,844 sq. f t . of property - covered by buildings 54,157 sq. ft. Therefore approximately 22,687 sq. ft. of open space on site, or approximately 29%. Under existing zoning, we could cover the entire site with buildings . . . we are thus providing a very large open space not required by the bylaws. (Ci ty of Vancouver f i le #33926) This statement indicates the underlying feeling of the developer that by providing additional open space, not required under the zoning bylaw, the development was contributing posit ively to the downtown environment. One of the last towers in the plaza developed in the downtown core is Oceania P l aza . This project, begun in 1976, includes a 28-storey office tower and urban - 3 6 -plaza (Kalman 1978, p. 119). Oceania P laza , unlike the 3enta l l developments described above, was the subject of intense debate between the developer and the C i t y . One issue this debate focused on was the plaza-building relationship, with the C i t y hoping that through their efforts at improvement, a better relationship would be developed (Ci ty of Vancouver f i le #62582). Thus the debate over Oceania P l a z a followed the general shift in architectural style away from the rigid tower in the plaza toward less rigid forms. In the nearly ten years between the development of Bental l I and 2 and the development of Oceania P laza the popular response to that building form had shifted. Bental l I and 2 met with a generally positive response from the C i t y , Oceania P laza a decidedly negative one. In this period urban regulations were one step behind urban development. Rather than influencing urban form, the existing regulations, allowing 100% site coverage, were set aside, through various ad hoc measures, to allow the approval of straight towers and plazas. - 3 7 -- 3 8 -1975 T H E D O W N T O W N DISTRICT O F F I C A L D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N Urban Regulations. Through the I 960's Vancouver's C i t y Counci l and Planning Department undertook a wide range of studies and reports focusing on down-town issues. However, not unti l the I970's did any of these studies and reports result in significant changes to the regulations. In the fall of 1973, temporary amendments were made to the Zoning and Development Bylaw #3575. In addition to the power to vary existing controls given to the Technical Planning Board in 1968, al l downtown development was now made subject to their approval. In reviewing projects for development approval, the Board had to give consideration to such elements as "design, views, amenities, relation to surrounding buildings, pedestrian needs and interests, and effect on t ra f f ic" (Ci ty of Vancouver 1981a, p . 32). C i t y Counci l adopted the Downtown Dis t r ic t Off ic ia l Development Plan in the fall of 1975. The Plan was designed to regulate development in the downtown core, including most of the study area. The Development Permi t Board and the Development Permi t Advisory Board were also established in 1975. The Development Permi t Board has the power to approve development permit applications in accordance with their conformance with the Plan (Ci ty of Vancouver 1981 a, p. 34). In the Plan a dist inct ion is drawn between regulations and interpretative requirements. Regulations dictate land use, density and parking. Interpretative - 3 9 -requirements influence height of buildings, social and recreational amenities and fac i l i t ies (Ci ty of Vancouver 1975, p. 446). This split between regulations and requirements marks a new approach to control l ing development in downtown Vancouver. Pr ior to the adoption of this Plan, a l l developments were subject to specific regulations, which were either enforced or waived by the Technical Planning Board, or in some case the Board of Variance, or the C i t y Counc i l . With the adoption of the Plan a new f lexibi l i ty entered into development control downtown. This f l ex ib i l i ty was now incorporated into the existing development permit application process. The intent of the Downtown Dis t r i c t Off ica l Development Plan is stated in the P lan : (1) To improve the general environment of the Downtown Dis t r ic t as an a t t ract ive place in which to l ive, work, shop, and vis i t . (2) To ensure that a l l buildings and developments in the Downtown Dis t r i c t meet the highest standards of design and amenity for the benefit of a l l users of the Downtown. (3) To provide for f lex ib i l i ty and crea t iv i ty in the preparation of development proposals. (4) To encourage more people to live within the Downtown Dis t r i c t . (5) To support the objectives of the Greater Vancouver Regional Dis t r ic t as referred to in "The Livable Region 1976/1986" as issued March 1975, to decentralize some office employment to other parts of Greater Vancouver by discouraging office developments considered inappropriate in the Downtown Dis t r i c t . (6) To improve transportation Downtown by encouraging greater transit usage, discouraging automobile usage for journeys to work, and by maintaining automobile access for non-work trips including shopping, business and entertainment. (Ci ty of Vancouver 1975, p. 495) - 4 0 -The intent statement fails to identify open space or open space issues as important components of downtown development. In addition to the regulations and interpretative requirements stated in the Plan , C i t y Counci l adopted an extensive set of guidelines for the Downtown Dis t r i c t . These included: Planning Pol ic ies , Design Guidelines and Character  Areas. The intent of the guidelines was to spell out the Ci ty ' s objectives for downtown development. Two of the guidelines, Planning Pol ic ies , and Design  Guidelines ar t iculate the Ci ty ' s intentions for downtown open space. In Planning Pol ic ies , a series of policies are outlined. Two of these pertain di rect ly to open space. 1. Implement an open space concept for downtown through combined publ ic/pr ivate act ion. 2. Encourage developers to provide usable open space where pedestrian amenities should be high. (Ci ty of Vancouver 1980a, p. 4) In Design Guidelines the general a im for urban open space is stated as, "to provide varied, accessible, and where appropriate, interconnected open spaces to be used by a wide range of people throughout the year" (Ci ty of Vancouver I 980b, p. 2). This statement is supported by a series of detailed guidelines. The guidelines for "Public Open Space at or Near Grade" are: Depending on the size, function, and location of the space in question, the following points should be considered in their design: a) Spaces should be varied, interesting, and should be designed to reflect their different functions, ac t iv i t ies , and topography. Elements such as level changes, plant mater ial , and pattern should be carefully related. (b) Spaces associated with heavy pedestrian volumes should be designed to incorporate such uses as retai l shops or restaur-ants, and where desirable provide areas for act ivi t ies such as bandstands, street vending kiosks, and provisions for small public gatherings. (c) These places should also provide either in the same space or in close proximity , some of the following faci l i t ies for the convenience of the public: Places to sit Sheltered places B i c y c l e racks Washrooms Drinking fountains Sculptures Clocks Stages, platforms or rostrums Ponds, pools and fountains (d) Such spaces should also provide lighting at pedestrian scale so as to encourage night use. (e) A l l faci l i t ies provided should meet the requirements set for the physically handicapped. (f) In the design of public open spaces, consideration should be given to creating views to: the water and mountains various streetscapes and urban landmarks other open spaces. (Ci ty of Vancouver 1980b, p. 2) These open space policies and guidelines do not represent regulations or even requirements. Instead they are intended to act as suggestions for the development of open space within the area covered by the Downtown Dis t r ic t  Of f i c i a l Development Plan , the eventual result being that their influence varied from project to project. Urban Open Space. As shown on Map 2.9 - 1975 T H E D O W N T O W N DISTRICT O F F I C I A L D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N , six developments within the study area date - 4 2 -from this period. Three of the most significant are: the Daon development, 3ental l 4 and 800 3urrard. The Daon development, begun in 1977, includes a 19-storey office tower and urban plaza (Ci ty of Vancouver file #76481). The now character is t ic , diagonal plan and mult i faceted tower of the development represents one of the first modif icat ion of the r igid tower in the plaza form that had previously dominated private development in Vancouver's downtown core. This development was subject to an intense debate between the developers, the architects , and the C i t y . The C i t y saw the site as a strategic one, because i t straddles the junction between the Downtown Dis t r ic t and the Centra l Waterfront D i s t r i c t . The C i t y felt that any development of this site must meet the objectives of both dis tr ic ts . A C i t y of Vancouver interoffice memorandum dated February 15, 1977, states: Any development of the site must recognize and account for: Pedestrian needs and ac t iv i t ies , with emphasis along the northerly sun-exposed side of the street.. .concerns that pedestrian amenities such as viewing plazas, landscaped pockets are provided with water site views.. .Pedestrian linkages to the future Waterfront develop-ment and 3urrard Street is considered to be a major pedestrian corridor to the waterfront. (Ci ty of Vancouver fi le #76481) A t one point in the development permit process, Ray Spaxman, the Direc tor of Planning, suggested a Design-In. He offered to meet with Bob Levine of Daon and Frank Musson and Terry C a t e l l , the architects, to "solve the design problems of this project" (Ci ty of Vancouver fi le #76481). These focused on the exterior form and orientation of the building. Perhaps the dist inct ive mu l t i -- 43 -faceted form of the building and surrounding open space emerged at the Design-In. The Daon development set the stage for future developments. The Manulife Building at 510 Burrard Street and Park P lace at 600 Burrard Street, both built after the Daon building, exhibit the character is t ic diagonal plan, creat ing new open space along 3urrard Street . Benta l l 4, begun in 1978, includes the fourth and last tower to be built on the Bental l site, and a parking garage and urban plaza (Ci ty of Vancouver file #8201 I). This development is character is t ic of the tower in the plaza form, although in this case, the plaza is one floor below street level . The debate between the C i t y and the developers over this final phase of the Bental l development represents the changed attitudes towards this form of development. The developers were required to undertake a detailed assessment of the wind patterns at the pedestrian level . They were pressured by the C i t y to significantly alter the open space. However, the developers refused to change their design, and at the end of the development permit application process Ray Spaxman, the Direc tor of Planning, concluded, "there was consider-able unrealized potential to create an a t t ract ive pedestrian environment" (Ci ty of Vancouver f i le #8201 I). Therefore, the C i t y was unable to influence the design of Bental l 4 to meet this open space objective. - 44 -The 800 Burrard project, begun in I 978, is a combined residential , commercia l project that includes a 16-storey office tower, two residential wings and an urban plaza (Ci ty of Vancouver f i le #82580). This project involved the transfer of development rights, from the residential portion to the commercia l portion of the development, as part of the C i t y policy to encourage the development of housing in the downtown core. The Ci ty ' s principal open space concern, in this project, was to reduce the shadowing effect of the development on Robson and 3urrard Streets. The Development Approval Board, on June I I, 1979, suggested the tower element be modified to reduce the shadowing effect (Ci ty of Vancouver file #82580). This l imi ted concern indicates the Ci ty ' s open space intention for this project. The Downtown Dis t r i c t Of f i c i a l Development Plan is a departure from the earlier forms of Vancouver's urban regulations. The early regulations were replaced by regulations and requirements. These regulations and requirements were supported by a series of policies and guidelines. The development permit application process became a process of negotiation where the needs of the developer and the C i t y could be matched. In this period urban regulations were again influencing open space development; however, from the developments investigated the influence appears to vary from project to project. - 45 -Cordova 6f. M j 1 • 1 Ills s \. 3 Q E 3" \) 1 u 1 ^ PuHsmuir" St. • • • K / N t^fOr"<liq Sr. C P HB 1? ^ ST. Smith*, sr. f=ir~i n n n M A P 2.9 1975 T H E D O W N T O W N DISTRICT O F F I C I A L D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N - 46 -1979 T H E C E N T R A L W A T E R F R O N T O F F I C I A L D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N Urban Regulations. In 1979, C i t y Counci l adopted the Centra l Waterfront  Of f ic ia l Development P lan . The Plan was designed to influence future development of the Cent ra l Waterfront dis t r ic t , which includes a portion of the study area. The Plan is subject to the interpretation of the Development Permi t 3oard, and the Board may approve or refuse a development permit application on the grounds of compliance with the P lan . The P lan sets out a series of general goals for the Centra l Waterfront Di s t r i c t . The goals are: Encourage the development of new urban uses including commerc ia l , recreat ional , cul tural and public uses throughout the waterfront area. Provide for easy public access to the waterfront. Enhance the public's enjoyment of the waterfront by encouraging the provision of harbour ac t iv i t ies and a variety of views. Fac i l i t a t e the continued operation of port functions. Fac i l i t a t e the continued operation of rail faci l i t ies to serve port, freight and passenger functions. Provide transit systems for movement to, from, and between waterfront developments in order to decrease, dependence upon the private automobile. Ensure a scale transition in the physical form of future development between Downtown and the Burrard Inlet. Support the objectives of the Greater Vancouver Regional Dis t r ic t as referred to in 'The Livable Region 1976/86', in part icular the concept of living close to work. (Ci ty of Vancouver 1979, p. 516) The Plan also provides a framework within which these goals are expanded into descriptive policies. These policies cover: Use, Population, Physical F o r m , - 4 7 -Publ ic Open Space, Movement Pat tern and Shoreline. Of these policies three, Physical Fo rm, Public Open Space and Movement Patterns, exert a direct influence on urban open space development. The Physical Form section emphasizes the importance of new development relating to the form and scale of existing developments. The section states: A variety of building heights and development forms wi l l be desirable in the Centra l Waterfront. The planning of any new development wi l l require the thorough analysis of its potential impact on the variety of view environments (predominantly streets, sidewalks and plazas) in Downtown and Gastown as well as its potential impact regarding shadowing onto existing sunny areas of the Cent ra l Waterfront which are ideal for public use. (Ci ty of Vancouver 1979, p. 526) This general policy emphasizing the public environment is supported by a series of specific policy statements: 1. The scale of new development should provide a physical transition from existing buildings abutting the northern edge of Downtown and Gastown to the water area of Burrard Inlet. 2. The height and bulk of new development should generally decrease towards the water area of 3urrard Inlet. 3. The location, height and massing of new development should minimize noon-hour shadowing onto the sunny areas of the Centra l Waterfront. 4. The location, height and massing of new development should preserve and maximize view potential of the waterfront, Burrard Inlet and the North Shore mountains from existing street-ends of Downtown and Gastown. 5. New development should create new opportunities to view waterfront ac t iv i t ies wherever possible. 6. New development should u t i l i ze accessible roof areas as terraces including, wherever possible, public use. Such areas - 4 8 -should be sensitively treated part icular ly responding to c l ima t i c conditions as wel l as creating a pleasant visual environment when viewed from adjacent higher structures. (Ci ty of Vancouver 1979, p. 526) The policy statements place a special emphasis on the environmental quality of the Centra l Waterfront. The section on Public Open Space defines open space as, "open to the sky, and accessible to the public at all t imes." Open space is identified as "a basic necessity for the successful redevelopment of the Centra l Waterfront into a high quality urban environment." In order to ensure that adequate public open space w i l l be provided "new development must contribute to the provision of such space" (Ci ty of Vancouver 1979, p. 526). These general policies for open space are supported by a series of specific policy statements: 1. Major public open space should be provided at locations in close proximity to the intended primary pedestrian access to the Cent ra l Waterfront as set out in Section 4 - -Sub-Area Development Guidelines. 2. Approximately 32 acres of public open space should be pro-vided in the Centra l Waterfront. In order to achieve this objective, each new development should strive to provide public open space equivalent to at least 40% of the develop-ment area. 3. New development in the Centra l Waterfront w i l l be required to provide for different types of open spaces as follows: (a) Public pedestrian walkway space to be located at or in a position direct ly associated with the water's edge. Such space need not be at the same level throughout but should form part of a continuous pedestrian walkway system within the Centra l Waterfront. (b) Public pedestrian c i rcula t ion systems which connect the development to its surrounding areas including pedestrian access to the Centra l Waterfront. - 49 -(c) A variety of public places to serve the act ive and passive relaxation of the future population of the Cent ra l Waterfront and its visi tors . (Ci ty of Vancouver 1979, p. 527) The Public Open Space section of the Centra l Waterfront Off ic ia l Development  Plan represents the most detailed expression of open space policies within Vancouver's regulations. The Movement Patterns section identifies pedestrian access as currently being very l imi ted . Therefore, the objective of this section is to create major pedestrian links to the Downtown and Gastown. This section proposes that these pedestrian links wi l l eventually be connected to "the future pedestrian walkway system which is envisioned to be continuous and located in close proximity to the shoreline" (Ci ty of Vancouver 1979, p. 527). A series of specific policy statements support this general pol icy; they are: Pedestrian I I. Safe, convenient and a t t rac t ive pedestrian access to the waterfront should be provided throughout the Centra l Waterfront connecting d i rec t ly to the existing Downtown and Gastown Street system. 12. A continuous pedestrian walkway system should be developed in close proximity to the existing shoreline. Such walkway system need not be at the same level throughout and should be connected direct ly to other pedestrian c i rcula t ion systems within the Centra l Waterfront. 13. Pedestrian routes should be provided to enable easy movement between developments in the Centra l Waterfront. (Ci ty of Vancouver 1979, p. 529) These policy statements emphasize the importance of pedestrian access and c i rcula t ion to the redevelopment of the Centra l Waterfront Di s t r i c t . - 50 -The Centra l Waterfront Of f i c i a l Development Plan embodies the most comprehensive approach to urban open space within the C i t y of Vancouver's regulations. Urban Open Space. As shown on . Map 2 . 1 0 - 1 9 7 9 THE C E N T R A L W A T E R F R O N T O F F I C I A L D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N , five developments within the study area date from this period. Two important projects currently under construction in the Centra l Waterfront Dis t r ic t are the Sinclair Center and Canada Harbour P lace . Both projects are funded by the Federal Government. Sinclair Center is the restoration of the old Post Off ice and Canada Customs buildings. The restoration w i l l not change the open space-built form relationship of the original development. Canada Harbour P lace , situated on the old piers B and C , incorporates the Pan Pac i f i c Hotel and the Canadian Pavi l ion for Expo 86. Af te r Expo 86, the Pavi l ion w i l l become a cruise ship fac i l i ty and convention centre. Included in this project are a series of public open spaces and walkways. This system of open spaces is designed to provide new waterfront viewing opportunities. The C i t y has worked closely with the federal government to ensure that the open space policies, ar t iculated in the Cent ra l Waterfront P lan , are achieved in this development. Two other important projects, within the study area but outside the Centra l Waterfront Dis t r i c t , are the Park Place development and the Manulife Building. -51 -The Park Place development was approved in 1980. This development includes a 35-storey office tower, urban park and Chris t Church Cathedral . The project involved the transfer of development rights from Chr is t Church Cathedral to the tower. This transfer enabled the 35-storey office tower, Vancouver's tallest, to be built (Ci ty of Vancouver f i le #89697). The C i t y insisted that the developer use open space to unite the two diverse elements of the development; the tower and the Cathedral . Therefore, a unified landscape theme was prepared for the entire site. The C i t y also required a major urban open space be developed on the site. The Ci ty ' s main requirement for that space was easy access from the Burrard Street sidewalk (Ci ty of Vancouver file #89697). The Manulife Building includes a 14-storey office tower with retai l use at ground level and an urban plaza on 3urrard Street. The architects in their submission to the C i t y describe the development as addressing "the new scale of the surrounding area, injects high quality commercia l and retail space into the community, and adds a major public open space to the downtown core" (Ci ty of Vancouver file #93703). The C i t y insisted that a pedestrian link to Hornby Street be provided through the building during working hours. Also , the building setback on 3urrard Street is designed to provide substantial amounts of sunlight to the plaza between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The C i t y also required that extensive planting and trees be added to the plaza (Ci ty of Vancouver file #93703). The Cent ra l Waterfront Off ic ia l Development Plan continues the approach first taken by the Downtown Dis t r i c t Of f i c i a l Development Plan of replacing fixed - 52 -regulations with more flexible controls. Unl ike the Downtown Plan where fixed regulations were replaced with a combination of regulations and requirements, the Cent ra l Waterfront Plan replaces the fixed regulations with a combination of regulations and planning policies . The planning policies, including the open space policies, are intended to influence rather than control development. They rely on the negotiation process between the C i t y and the developer included in the development permit application process. The process allows the C i t y to u t i l i ze the planning policies to exert influence on the development to achieve their objectives. For example, the Canada Harbour Place development meets the Ci ty ' s planning policy which states that, "new development should create new opportunities to view waterfront ac t iv i t ies wherever possible" (Ci ty of Vancouver 1979 p. 526). - 53 -M A P 2.10 1979 T H E C E N T R A L W A T E R F R O N T O F F I C I A L D E V E L O P M E N T P L A N - 54 -This review of Vancouver's downtown regulatory history identifies five dist inct periods. Within these five periods, three distinct approaches to open space regulations are evident. In the first , from 1886 to 1928, the regulations exerted no direct influence on open space. During the second, from 1928 to 1975, the controls restr icted open space to the public sidewalks. However, for a significant period, from approximately 1956 to 1975, these controls were ignored as developments, in contravention to the regulations, were approved by the Technical Planning Board. In the third period, from 1975 onwards, the general approach shifted away from the regulatory approach toward a planning approach unique to Vancouver. Vancouver's history does not exhibit the strong connection between the various forms of regulations seen in both New York 's and San Francisco's . Instead, there is a dist inct movement away from the early regulatory approach toward the current planning approach. Within the planning approach, the open space objectives are not achieved through the actions of regulations. Instead, the objectives are intended to influence the negotiations, between the C i t y and the developer, incorporated into the development permit application process. Investigation into the development permit application process revealed that the influence of the objectives on open space varies from case to case as different open space concerns, such as shading or street accessibi l i ty , are identified by the C i t y . Within this flexible negotiation system, the C i t y is not always successful in its attempts to have developments meet its concerns. - 5 5 -2.4 T H E E F F E C T O F R E G U L A T I O N O N U R B A N O P E N S P A C E This examination, of the influence of regulation on open space development in New York , San Francisco and Vancouver, reveals a number of important conclusions. Initially, al l three ci t ies adopted regulations that exerted l i t t le direct influence on urban open space. These first regulations did, however, have the indirect effect of l imi t ing open space to the public sidewalks. Throughout the 1960's, the three ci t ies allowed the development of towers in plazas. This form of development was encouraged by the regulations in New York and San Francisco . Although they were in contradict ion to Vancouver's regulations, the C i t y supported their development. As towers in plazas proliferated, the negative effects they exerted on the urban environment became apparent. These negative effects motivated the three ci t ies to change their approach to urban open space contro l . New York chose to modify their regulatory approach by developing more detailed and specific controls to influence the development of urban plazas. San Francisco chose to replace their regulatory approach with open space planning, and developed open space objectives and supporting regulations. Vancouver chose to adopt Of f i c i a l Development Plans where open space policies influence development through negotiations between the C i t y staff and the developers. - 56 -These changes represent three very different responses toward open space development. With the exception of San Francisco's open space objectives, the regulations examined do not define, in broad terms, what constitutes adequate and appropriate open space. Without this defini t ion, the various approaches to urban open space continue to respond to current situations rather than to wel l considered objectives. Therefore, Chapter 3 investigates what constitutes adequate and appropriate open space. - 57 -C H A P T E R 3 T H E DEFINITION O F OBJECTIVES F O R U R B A N O P E N S P A C E The purpose of this chapter is to define adequate and appropriate open space, and express that definit ion as a series of fundamental objectives for the development of urban open space. This is done by reviewing the history of urban open space to identify fundamental shifts in the understanding of urban open space. This understanding is then used to generate modern open space objectives. Many authors have defined urban open space. Seymour Gold , in his book Urban  Recreat ional Planning, defines urban open space as : "a l l land and water in an urban area which is not covered by buildings" (Gold 1973, p. 320). D . A . Cot ton , in the ar t ic le "Open Space: Its Value and Conservation in the New Urban Environment" provides another defini t ion: "open space is that part of the three-dimensional void of the landscape not occupied by man-made features constructed for spatial enclosure" (Cotton 1964, p. I). Kev in Lynch provides another defini t ion: "open space . . . is an outdoor area . . . which is open to the freely-chosen and spontaneous ac t iv i ty , movement, or visual exploration of a significant number of c i ty people" (Lynch 1963, p. 3). Within the context of this thesis, urban open space is defined as a l l the space that is open to the sky and  accessible to the general public in the urban environment. While a park is the most obvious example, open space encompasses more than just parks. The long list of urban open spaces includes: sidewalks, alleys, squares, parks, boulevards, avenues, malls, plazas and lef t -over spaces. - 53 -3.1 U R B A N O P E N S P A C E C O N C E P T S Throughout history, open spaces have played an important role in c i ty development. In reviewing urban history, a legacy of open space is evident. The town square, cathedral plaza and urban park are but a few of the long list of historic open spaces. Important as these historic open spaces are, the review of urban development indicates that there are c r i t i ca l times where the basic understanding of urban open space shifts. It is these shifts, and not the list of various open spaces, that are fundamental to the understanding of urban open space. Four c r i t i c a l shifts in open space understanding are represented in: the Greek c i ty agora, the medieval ci ty plaza, the industrial c i ty park and the modern c i ty open space network. The Greek Ci ty Agora The ancient Greek c iv i l i za t ion exerted a tremendous influence on urban open space, by providing the conceptual origins. The Greeks originated the concept of democracy, which found physical expression in their central urban spaces or agoras. The word agora means public meeting place. It was to the agora that the ci t izens of ancient Greece came to exchange news, to trade, to exercise, and to meet. As such, the agora was multifunctional and provided opportunities for a l l the ci t izens to learn, play, work, and socia l ize . - 59 -The agora in Athens was a large central space the size of two football fields (Wilkinson 1984, p. 47). However, it is the representation of the important concept of democracy, and not the physical form, that makes the agora an important urban open space model today. The agora established open space as public space, that is accessible to a l l c i t izens . As Lawrence Halprin states: The greatest major plazas in the world become c iv i c symbols, not only because of their beauty of design, but because of the variegated and important events which take place in them. (Halprin 1972, p.28) Therefore, our concept of open space as public space, for public use, originated in the c i t ies of ancient Greece. The Medieval C i ty Plaza The medieval c i t ies were preoccupied with protect ion. Typical ly , they were located on easily defensible sites and surrounded by large walls . Inside the walls, open space was generally l imi ted to the central p laza . This plaza was the heart of medieval .ci t ies. While the Greek ideal of democracy was in decline, the need for commerce, trade and social contact was great. The central plaza offered the most protected location for these ac t iv i t ies . In medieval c i t ies , the division between buildings and open space was not dist inct . This lack of differentiat ion was the result of the tremendous space constraints within the walls, where buildings and open space were in constant competi t ion. This competi t ion resulted in a tight interrelation of space and mass. The space constraints also resulted in a world easily accessible by the person on foot. Typical ly , within the walls, the pedestrian had access to the entire c i ty . - 6 0 -The medieval model is important today because it represents a scale of development that revolves around the person, and it represents an urban environment dominated not by buildings or open space, but by their interrelationship. The Industrial C i ty Park The Industrial Revolut ion exerted a tremendous effect on c i t ies . Urban populations expanded dramatical ly and urban conditions deteriorated as c i t ies were unable to provide the level of service necessary to ensure the basic conditions for healthy l i fe . As conditions deteriorated, reform movements with the goal of improving urban conditions developed. One result of the reform movements was the creat ion of urban parks. New York 's Cent ra l Park, developed in the late I800's, is a good example of such a park. Frederick L . Olmstead and Ca lver t Vaux, designers of Centra l Park, stated that their intention was to create contrasting and varying passages of scenery, all tending to suggest to the imagination a great range of rural conditions (Roper 1983, p. 137). Centra l Park was developed as a piece of the natural rural landscape in the c i ty . The park was envisioned as a place where both the r ich and poor could enjoy the benefits of nature (Roper 1983, p. 144). The urban park, which was developed in industrial c i t ies , attempted to use nature as a counterbalance against the negative effects of industr ial izat ion. The belief that contact with nature could improve people's lives supported the development of the great urban parks. In the industrial c i t ies , open space became the important container of the natural environment. - 61 -The Modern Ci ty Open Space Network Architecture 's modern movement incorporated the new technology developed after the industrial revolution. For Norma Evenson, the modern movement embodied: an enthusiastic acceptance of the conditions of modern l i fe , and a determination to employ al l the resources of advanced technology to enable architecture to achieve a form suitable to the spirit of the modern age. (Evenson 1969, p. 9) Adherents to the modernist point of view envisioned ci t ies transformed into rows of high rise towers, connected by freeways, all sitting in a vast garden. This vision changed c i ty form. Gone was the scale of development based pr imari ly on pedestrian accessibi l i ty; it was replaced with a scale of development based on machines - the automobile and the elevator. The modern movement was conceptualized as a new real i ty that would replace existing c i t ies . Instead, modernist buildings and their surrounding open spaces were inserted into the fabric of these c i t ies , resulting in confl ic t that had an effect on urban open space. Open space that had been l imi ted to sidewalks and parks was expanded to include building plazas. These plazas were often poorly connected to the existing open space, and did not contain any faci l i t ies to encourage public use. This resulted in the fragmentation and confusion of urban open space. The modernist vision of the c i ty set in a vast open space was very different from the reali ty of fragmented and poorly used urban open space. The vision and the reali ty combined to move the understanding of open space away from the individual components and toward the sum of the components or the open space network. - 62 -f History reveals four fundamental shifts in open space understanding: The Greek c i ty concept of open space for public use; the medieval c i ty concept of open space that shapes the urban environment; the industrial c i ty concept of open space as a container of nature; and the modern c i ty concept of open space as a network. These shifts have important implications for modern open space development. The following sections of this chapter investigate the implications each of the four open space concepts have on modern urban open space development. 3.1.1 Urban Open Space for Publ ic Use The c iv i c ideal of open space as public space, that originated with the ancient Greeks, is s t i l l important today. The open spaces of the c i ty are the symbols of democracy and equali ty. They are the places accessible to a l l , fac i l i ta t ing the shared experience of' urban l iving; they are the places where people meet, gather, and exchange ideas. Lawrence Halprin describes public c i ty life as: social , extroverted and interrelated. It is the life of the streets and plazas, the great parks and c i v i c spaces . . . This life is mostly out in the open in the great urban spaces, where crowds gather and people part icipate in exci t ing urban interrelationships which they seek as human beings. (Halprin 1972, p. I I) Therefore, urban open space acts to bring people together; the arrangement of open spaces and their design should encourage people's interaction. The two primary public uses of urban open space that faci l i ta te the interact ion of people are c i rculat ion and recreation. - 63 -Circulation Circu la t ion has long been a primary function of urban open space. In modern c i t ies , pedestrian c i rcula t ion is growing in importance. August Heckscher states: The spatial organization of today's c i t ies is being largely determined by the fact that people like to be on foot as observers and participants in the urban scene. They are increasingly prepared to park their cars and take part as individual human beings in the movement of the c i ty . (Heckscher 1977, p. 30) Therefore, the quality of the pedestrian environment is an important urban concern. Urban open space affects the pedestrian environment in two c r i t i c a l ways. F i r s t , open spaces often are important centers of ac t iv i ty . Therefore, they are important pedestrian destinations. Second, open spaces often provide the connections between centers of ac t iv i ty . The location of centers of ac t iv i ty within the pedestrian c i rcula t ion network is c r i t i c a l to the quality of the pedestrian environment. Robert Cook points, out "ease of accessbi l i ty , visual proximity and nearness to the center of things a l l promote use" (Cook 1980, p. 13). Urban open space is a c r i t i c a l component of the pedestrian environment. Recreation One of the key reasons open spaces are important urban destinations is because open spaces provide the opportunity for recreat ion. Within the l i terature, recreation is presented as the primary human need for modern open space. Paul Wilkinson, in his book Urban Open Space, outlines - 6 4 -two components of recreation; the physical and the psychological (Wilkinson I 984, p. 20). He sees the recreation function of urban open space as a counter-balance to the stress of regulated work, the highly structured urban environment, and the problems involved in social situations. He states "open space and recreation have the potential to provide a suitable mix of new and varied s t imul i " (Wilkinson 1984, p. 23). In order to satisfy an individual's requirements for self-expression, self-fulf i l lment , and sensory st imulat ion a variety of opportunities must be provided. Wilkinson argues that to even begin to meet this need "there should be a wide variety of recreational opportunities provided in a well planned urban open space system" (Wilkinson 1984, p . 21). Wi l l iam Whyte in his book, The Social L i f e of Small Urban Spaces, presents the findings of the Street L i f e Project . The project studied how people use small urban plazas in New York . Whyte identified various forms of socia l iz ing as the primary recreational ac t iv i ty of small urban plazas. He states "what attracts people most, it would seem, is other people" (Whyte 1980, p. 19). To fac i l i ta te social iz ing, Whyte identifies a series of c r t i c i a l factors including: seating, sun, wind, trees, water and food. One other c r i t i ca l factor identified is the relationship of the plaza to the street. Whyte observes that proximity and involvement with the street plus the other factors mentioned are c r i t i ca l to establishing successful human use patterns. Accommodat ing public uses is an important function of urban open space. The two primary public uses of open space are c i rculat ion and recreation. Determining the amount and type of urban open space necessary to meet public - 65 -needs is a complex undertaking. Two components are involved: developing the essential open space capable of accommodating the variety of public ac t iv i t ies , and ensuring that the components are wel l linked by the pedestrian environment. 3.1.2 Urban Open Space to Shape the Urban Environment Urban form is comprised of two elements, open space and built form. These elements are arranged by economic, social , and pol i t ica l forces into the complex relationships that create the environment. Within this environment the relationship between open space and built form provides the basic texture. Edmund Bacon in his book, Design of C i t i e s , suggests that the essence of design is the interrelationship of open space and built form. He points out that, in this culture, the preponderant preoccupation is with built form, to such an extent that many designers are 'space blind' . He suggests that to overcome space blindness: The first step is to orient one's mind as fully as possible to the concept of space as a dominating force, to respond to space as a basic element in itself. (Bacon 1974, p. 34) August Hecksher reinforces this opinion by outlining the importance of conceiving open spaces, "from the beginning, as elements of the c i ty at least as important as its buildings" (Hecksher 1977, p. 33). One way of conceptualizing the open space-built form relationship is as a continuum, with opposite open space-built form relationships at either ends. A t one end is a tight interrelated model, at the other, a loose interrelated model. - 66 -Along the continuum, between these basic models, an infinite variety of open space-built form patterns occur. F I G U R E 3.1 T H E C O N T I N U U M T H E W A L L E D C I T Y The tight relationship is character ized by the Walled C i t y . This model is based on the medieval c i t y . The medieval c i ty form developed in response to the need for protection, the need for a safe place in which life could go on (Gal lion 1963, p. 33). Walled ci t ies are character ized by massive encircl ing protect ive walls and intense development within them. Examples of walled c i t ies are York in England, Quebec in Canada, and Jerusalem in Israel. - 6 7 -F I G U R E 3.2 T H E W A L L E D C I T Y The walled c i ty space system was essentially a closed system. The walls surrounding the c i ty f i rmly l imited its development. Within the walls, a high density of development evolved. The streets and squares appear to be hollowed out of a compact mass of moderate height buildings. The building facades appeared as background for the open spaces cut into them (Lynch 1984, p . 407). Walled ci t ies are dominated by a central plaza (Gallion 1963, p. 378). Streets inside the walls, wi th the exception of a few main roads between the gates and the plaza, were for pedestrian c i rcula t ion only. These narrow streets wound about the c i ty , often changing direct ion, merging and separating with other streets eventually finding their way to the central plaza. The proportions, characteris t ics and connections of these public spaces create the character of the c i t y . Lawrence Halprin describes the appeal of the medieval c i ty today as: The medieval street has intriguing characteris t ics for modern people. It tends to be narrow and winding, with an air of mystery and adventure. One does not see very far ahead, and the promise of fulfi l lment is always one step beyond. (Halprin 1972, p. 17) - 6 8 -The effect of the walled ci t ies was the creat ion of a visually defined structured and l imited relationship of open space and built form. This relationship is referred to as tight. F I G U R E 3.3 T H E TIGHT RELATIONSHIP The tight relationship, of open space to built form, embodied within the walled c i ty model is part of designers' common heritage. This intimate environment has a hold on their co l lec t ive imagination. As Kev in Lynch describes, in his book The Theory of Good C i t y F o r m : "We have a great affection for these ci t ies . They seem secure, legible, proportioned to the human scale, and charged with l ife, even if at t imes a l i t t le oppressive" (Lynch 1984, p. 407). Walled ci t ies are cert ianly incapable of accommodating the demands of modern c i t ies for high rises and freeways. But while far removed from today's modern style of life they have an a t t rac t ive scale, density of development, and quality of space that is lacking in most modern c i t ies . - 6 9 -The Tower in the Park The loose relationship is character ized by the tower in the park. This model responds to the desire for space. L e Corbusier, the poet of this model, incorporated the potential of modern construction technology and the demands of modern ci t ies . Taking his cue from technology, L e Corbusier envisioned ci t ies keyed to the massive scale of new commercia l , industrial and residential organization. In this model, the buildings were placed in regular rows widely spaced, and separated by avenues designed for rapid movement (Heckscher 1977, p. 17). The buildings became isolated objects in space. These buildings, or clusters of them, are the remarkable elements, the open space form is lost and becomes merely a background for the buildings (Lynch 1984, p. 408). This character is t ic open space-built form relationship is referred to as loose. F I G U R E 3.4 T H E T O W E R IN T H E P A R K - 7 0 -The tower in the park model was expressed in L e Corbusier's plan for Paris , the 1925 Voisin Plan (Gal lion 1963, p. 360). In this proposal, the medieval and baroque heart of Paris was replaced by L e Corbusier's vision. In the plan the downtown is comprised of a series of 60-storey towers set in a vast open space. The towers are completely isolated from each other, and completely surrounded by open space. F I G U R E 3.5 T H E L O O S E R E L A T I O N S H I P L e Corbusier's vision caught the imagination of planners, architects, and developers and became the model for North Amer ican c i t ies . One fact that may have contributed to the appeal of this vision is the embodiment of visual order. In spite of the current fashion for visual complexi ty, Le Corbusier's vision s t i l l provides simple and straightforward solutions. L e Corbusier succeeded in permeating the col lec t ive subconscious of the design profession with a set of urban prototypes forming a basis for much postwar building . . . prophetic of the massive urban renewal projects which would eventually transform the cores of many c i t ies . (Evenson 1969, p. 108) - 7 1 -The contribution of L e Corbusier, and the modern movement of architecture he influenced, was the conceptualizat ion of the modern urban environment. By using new technological developments of concrete and steel construction, the freeway and the tower were combined to create our modern urban environment. The lack of congestion, the clear organization of the streets and the separation of ac t iv i t ies cannot satisfy the need for mystery and surprise. This environment was character ized by both organization and separation of ac t iv i t ies . To achieve this level of organization and separation, the indistinct but appealing qualities of the walled c i ty model were lost. The tower in the park model reversed the relationship of open space and built form evident in the walled c i ty model . Where once open space and built form had been interwoven and connected, now they were separate and dist inct . The challenge facing modern designers and planners is to integrate the ground level , human scale environment of the walled c i ty with the modern freeways and towers of the tower in the park. August Hecksher describes the challenge as: To accept the economic pressures making for clusters of high rise buildings, and then to maximize at ground level the advantages produced by the concentration of people. (Hecksher 1977, p. 31) Understanding that open space is a determinant, not simply an accident, of urban form is c r i t i c a l in meeting this challenge. - 72 -3.1.3 Urban Open Space to Improve Environmental Quality The natural environment - the soi l , the water, the plants and the animals - can make an important contribution to urban l i fe . The people of the industrial c i t ies recognized the importance of the natural environment as a counter-balance to urban conditions. Therefore, they made great efforts to incorporate natural elements into their c i t ies . Today, with the ever-increasingly complex compet i t ion for urban space, the important role of the natural environment in the c i ty must be reasserted. Lawrence Halpr in states: We need once again to evaluate our urban open spaces to design them to perform ecological ly for the good of the community. We must real ize, too, that open spaces in a c i ty are not decorative fr i l l s which can be added or subtracted at whim. (Halprin 1972, p. I I) Where once the natural environment was understood as rural views and vistas, today it is understood as a complex set of interdependent dynamic processes. These processes: enable the continuous transformation and recylcing of l iving and non-living materials; interconnect the living plants and animals with the earth, c l imate and water; sustain life on earth and create the physical landscape. Therefore, incorporating nature into the urban environment involves much more than the insertion of a l imited number of plants and animals. It involves a restructuring of the c i ty , based on natural processes. Jack Wright contends that the conventional pattern of urban growth is largely based on socio-economic design concepts (Wright 1976, p. 40). He sees open space development as an after-thought or residual that only accidentally - 73 -coincides with areas important to natural processes. He states, " uncontrolled urban growth and unthinking destruction of natural resources have tradi t ionally resulted in costly remedial measures, such as water purif icat ion, erosion control , and air purif icat ion" (Wright 1976, p.40). F ina l ly , he asserts that environmentally sound urban developments can be achieved by respecting the existing natural processes and that such developments would prove aesthetically pleasing and cost effect ive . Michael Hough, in his book C i t y F o r m and Natural Process, argues that urban ecology should be the basis for urban design. He states: "as ecology has now become the indispensable basis for environmental planning of the larger landscape, so an understanding and application of the altered but nonetheless functioning natural processes within c i t ies becomes central to urban design" (Hough 1984, p. 25). He describes the modern c i ty as an environment totally separate from the processes control l ing the natural environment. The modern c i ty , while demanding a continuous supply of resources, does not recycle . Waste water, sewage, and garbage are a l l thrown away while fresh water, food, and other resources are constantly in demand. The modern c i ty encourages s impl ic i ty while the natural environment demands diversi ty. In the natural environment, diverse communities of plants and animals have evolved; in the c i ty , l imi ted types of plants and animals survive. The modern ci ty ignores mic ro-c l ima t ic variations and locational options, and instead, uses huge amounts of energy to modify the urban environment. Hough argues that by adhering to the natural processes and recycl ing resources, encouraging diversi ty, and maximizing locational options and siting variations, the urban - 74 -environment would be more productive, hospitable, and interesting. Furthermore, he insists that inserting environmentally sound processes into the existing urban fabric is not only possible, it is also cost effect ive. Through recycl ing and energy conservation, urban areas could easily recoup the costs of modifying the existing environment. Anne Whiston Spirn, in her book The Grani te Garden: Urban Nature and Human  Design, s imilar ly argues for natural processes as the basis for urban planning. She presents a plan applicable to every c i ty : a comprehensive plan for the management of the urban ecosystem. The plan provides a framework based on ecological principles within which individual components can be designed. She states: A n understanding of the urban natural environment should underlie al l aspects of the physical design of the c i ty : location of specific land uses; the shape, size and landscaping of urban parks and plazas; the alignment and width of streets and highways; and the overal l pattern of the ci ty 's transportation network, and places of work, residence and play. (Spirn I 984, p. 262) Spirn asserts that through planning based on natural processes, the tradit ionally accepted roles of open space for c i rcula t ion and recreation would be extended to include crucia l roles in environmental health and welfare. Both Hough and Spirn identify urban open space as a c r i t i c a l component necessary to the successful integration of natural processes into the urban environment. Urban open spaces, whether large or small , have the potential to improve air and water quality and c l ima t i c conditions, provide a diverse community of plants and animals, conserve energy and water, and assimilate - 7 5 -some of the ci ty 's wastes. Urban open spaces can thereby improve the environmental quality of the c i ty . 3.1.4 Urban Open Space as a Network It is c r i t i ca l that urban open space be understood not simply as individual components, but rather as a network comprised from these components. Jack Wright, in an ar t ic le for Recreat ion Canada, defines a network as: "a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming or regarded as forming a co l lec t ive ent i ty: a functionally related group of elements" (Wright 1974, p. 35). Therefore, the sidewalks, alleys, squares, parks, boulevards, avenues, malls, plazas and left-over spaces, if successfully connected, can create an urban open space network. This shift in the understanding of urban open space as a network represents the resurgence of past open space concepts. Pre-industr ial c i t ies , character ized in the earl ier discussion in their most extreme form of the walled c i ty , exhibit unmistakable patterns of interconnected open space. Walled ci t ies are places for walking and the open spaces exhibit a human scale, where both the width of the streets and the heights of the buildings are keyed to the pedestrian. Modern ci t ies , again character ized in the earlier discussion in their most extreme form of the tower in the park, exhibit a very different quality of space. The tower and the freeway create a ci ty of extraordinary scale, a ci ty that relates more easily to the automobile than to the pedestrian. - 76 -These two models represent extremes of urban form. In real i ty , most modern ci t ies blend aspects of both models. Before the development of the tower or the freeway, c i t ies ' open space patterns often revolved around the sidewalk and the urban park. These two components were connected and together they created an easily understood and accessed open space network. With the rise in popularity of modern architecture, more and more high rise towers in plazas were inserted into the existing urban fabric. The effect of this insertion was to interrupt the existing open space network. The new plazas were unconnected elements in the urban environment that often did not contribute to either the recreation or the c i rcula t ion functions of urban open space. This disruption of the previous straightforward and easily understood pattern of open spaces with unrelated elements, brought about a reassessment of urban open space. The reassessment asserted the fundamental need of urban open space to be perceived as a network. Galen Cranz , in an ar t ic le for Landscape, credits New York 's 1965 act ion of hiring archi tects and landscape architects to plan the city 's parks, small vacant lots, and plazas, as a c r i t i ca l expression of the network concept. Termed open space, these pieces of land became increasingly important to both ci t izens and professionals. A l l unbuilt spaces,, parks, streets, plazas, and empty lots were seen as part of a continuous network (Cranz 1978, p. 16). - 77 -These early actions by New York represent the first attempts to incorporate the new open space components, generated by modern architecture, into an open space network. With the development of the modern urban open space network concept, the emphasis within open space development shifted away from the individual components toward the connections between components necessary to create such a network. As Robert Cook describes: Public open space has come to be recognized not only as those places specif ical ly set aside for ac t ive or passive recreation but also the continuous network of sidewalks, parks and plazas. (Cook I 980, p. 7) Now each open space component must be assessed in terms of the entire network, for as Heckscher states: "The key must always be careful planning, sensitive to what makes open space a genuine contribution to the needs of the urban user" (Heckscher 1977, p. 7). In the long run, the effectiveness of urban open space components is related to how wel l these components are integrated into the network and how well the network is integrated into the urban environment. Therefore, emphasis should be placed on the integration, interrelation and interdependence of the components of the network. F rom this discussion of the implications of the four fundamental open space concepts on modern open space development, four objectives for urban open space can be defined. - 7 8 -3.2 U R B A N O P E N S P A C E O B J E C T I V E S 1. Develop urban open space for public use. Urban open spaces are the places where people meet, social ize and recreate. Therefore, public use standards that outline the appropriate public uses and open spaces required to accommodate these uses should be art iculated and applied to open space development. 2. Develop urban open space to shape the urban environment. Open spaces add human scale and visual diversi ty to the urban environment. Therefore standards that outline the desired relationship of open space and built form should be ar t iculated and applied to open space development. 3. Develop urban open space to improve environmental quali ty. Urban open space has the potential to contribute positively to the urban environment. Open spaces, whether small or large, can improve air and water quality and c l ima t i c conditions, provide a diverse community of plants and animals, conserve energy and water, and assimilate some of the city 's wastes. Therefore, standards for environmental quality should be ar t iculated and applied to urban open space development. 4. Develop urban open space as a network. Individual urban open spaces should be connected into a balanced, accessible and comprehensive series of open spaces, thus viewing open space as a whole, rather than - 79 -as a series of individual components. Therefore, standards for the development of open space networks should be art iculated and applied to urban open space development. These four urban open space objectives represent the essential qualities necessary for the development of adequate and appropriate open space. The four objectives closely correspond with the three open space objectives stated in San Francisco's 1983 Downtown Plan . This correspondence adds support to the proposition that adequate and appropriate open space can be developed through the influence of objectives and regulations. Chapter 4 compares the regulations, identified in Chapter 2, with the proposed open space objectives. - 8 0 -C H A P T E R 4 T H E E F F E C T O F T H E OBJECTIVES A N D T H E R E G U L A T I O N S O N U R B A N O P E N S P A C E The purpose of this chapter is two-fold; first, the regulations, identified in Chapter 2, are compared with the proposed open space objectives. This comparison determines how effect ively the regulations achieve the objectives; second, a decision-making process is outlined that would enable the narrow and effect ive actions of the regulations achieve the broad open space objectives. 4.1 T H E C U R R E N T E F F E C T O F T H E OBJECTIVES O N T H E R E G U L A T I O N S This section compares the regulations identified as influencing open space wi th the proposed open space objectives. The purpose of this comparison is to determine how effect ively the regulations achieve the objectives. I. Develop urban open space for public use. This objective is based on the premise that open spaces, whether publicly or privately owned, are accessible to a l l . They constitute the public component of the urban environment. The two primary public uses of open space are c i rcula t ion and recreation. The first zoning ordinance adopted by New York in 1916 exerted an. indirect influence on the public use of open space. The ordinance included bulk controls that allowed development to cover 100% of the site. The result of these -81 -controls was to effect ively restr ic ted open space to the sidewalks and l imi ted public use to c i rcula t ion and access. One goal of the 1961 plaza regulations, adopted by New York , was to increase the quantity and use of open space. Although the proposed plazas were situated on private property, they were envisioned as publicly accessible and usable, but in real i ty, they were often neither. The 1975 amendment to the plaza regulations adopted by New York was intended to improve the public accessibi l i ty and usability of the plazas. New York 's regulations do respect the basic objective in that they provide open space for public use. However, the open space developed under these regulations was restr icted to either sidewalks or plazas. No other forms of open space were developed for public use. The regulations were dominated by access and c i rcula t ion requirements, unti l 1975, when a l imited expression of recreation as a public use was incorporated into the regulations. San Francisco's 1983 Downtown P.Ian expresses a fundamentally different approach, to the public use of open space, than New York's regulations. The Plan encourages the development of a broad range of public open space options, including terraces, sidewalk widenings and parkettes. This range of options is intended to supplement the typical sidewalk and plaza forms encouraged by earlier regulations. The open space options are supported by regulations and guidelines to influence their development. The Plan emphasizes the basic - 82 -public uses of open space-circulat ion and access. The potential of urban recreation as a public use of open space is, as yet, underdeveloped. Vancouver's first expression of public use of open space in its regulations is contained in the 1975 Downtown Of f i c i a l Development Plan Guidelines. The guidelines encourage the creat ion of usable public open space, and present two policies for public open space. However, the policies are not supported by regulations. Instead, they are intended to act as interpretive requirements in the negotiation process between the C i t y and the developer. The Centra l Waterfront Of f i c i a l Development Plan , adopted in 1979, contains two public goals for urban open space. These goals are the first definite public open space statements contained in Vancouver's regulations. As such, they indicate the importance the C i t y places on the public use of open space as a component of the redevelopment of the waterfront area. These open space goals are further ar t iculated by policies . The policies are intended to act as interpretative requirements in the negotiation process. Neither the goals nor the policies are supported by expl ic i t regulations. In Vancouver's regulatory history, there are recent examples of objectives for public use of open space being ar t iculated. However, these general objectives are not translated into specific regulations. This lack of clear , concise regulations expressing the objectives, greatly increases the complexity of the process used to achieve the objectives. Vancouver relies on a negotiation process between the developer and the C i t y to insure that the developments - 8 3 -express the objectives. This method relies, for success, on the extent to which the developer can or wi l l modify their development to meet the C i t y objectives. From the examples c i ted earl ier , the effect of the negotiation process vary from development to development. From this comparison, it appears that the three ci t ies ' regulations do express the fundamental concept of public use - access and c i rcula t ion . 2. Develop urban open space to shape the urban environment. This objective is based on the concept that open space and built form combine to give shape to the urban environment. This concept is not wel l expressed in the regulations which concentrate on built form as the shaper of the urban environment. New York 's first zoning ordinance, passed in 1916, effect ively dictated the shape of the urban environment by l imit ing public open space to the sidewalks and built form to 100% of the site. Under these regulations a character is t ic urban form emerged of a solid wal l of building lined by the public sidewalks. While this urban form is not an example of an intr icate open space-built form relationship, it is an example of a simple, straightforward and functional relationship. The desire to increase the amount of open space in the downtown core, plus the popularity of architecture's modern movement, resulted in the 1961 plaza regulations. These regulations represent the modernist's understanding of urban - 84 -form. This loose open space-built form relationship is entrenched in the regulations. The effect of the regulations resulted in the emergence of a new urban form: the tower in the plaza . The insertion of this new form into the existing ci t ies resulted in problems which was most evident at ground level where the new plazas were often inaccessible from the existing sidewalks. These problems were addressed in the 1975 amendment to the 1961 regulations, and was intended to set standards expressed in the regulations, for use and accessibi l i ty of the plazas. New York 's regulations have exerted a significant influence on urban form. However, for the most part, that influence has been disruptive, repet i t ive and l imited. A t best, the later regulations can be seen as attempts to rect ify the i l l effects of the earl ier ones. Open space as a determinant of the urban environment has been poorly represented in the regulations. Instead, the regulations respond to changing archi tectural styles and concentrate on built form as the sole determinant of the urban environment. San Francisco's I 983 Downtown Plan exhibits a broader understanding of open space as a component of urban form. One open space objective stated in the Plan is, "Provide contrast and form by consciously treating open space as a counterpoint to the built environment" (Ci ty and County of San Francisco 1983, p. 58). This objective is supported by policies and regulations that specify the location of open space and the inclusion of natural elements in open space to further contrast with the built form. San Francisco's regulations present an - 85 -approach which sets specific urban environmental standards and achieve those standards through regulations. To date, most of Vancouver's regulations concentrate on built form as the determinant of the urban environment. One example of this is the 1979 Centra l  Waterfront Off ic ia l Development Plan . The Plan identifies the importance of relating new development to the form and scale of existing development. F o r m and scale is translated into building form and scale. The Plan states, "a variety of building heights and development forms wi l l be desirable" (Ci ty of Vancouver 1979, p. 526). This expl ic i t concentration on built form is evident throughout Vancouver's regulations. There is, within the regulations l i t t le understanding of open space as a determinant of the urban environment. The non-built portion of the site is seen as separate from the built portion, and both are seen as separate from the surrounding developments. This separation is the major result of ignoring the potential of open space to shape urban form. With the exception of San Francisco's 1983 Downtown Plan, the existing regulations have exerted a negative impact on the objective to develop urban open space to shape the urban environment. 3. Develop urban open space to improve environmental quality. This objective is based on the understanding that urban open space has the potential to contribute positively to the urban environment. This understanding is only - 86 -par t ia l ly expressed in the regulations. While the regulations do not contain an understanding of urban ecology, they do incorporate many standards to ensure si te-specific environmental quali ty. The 1975 amendment to the New York plaza regulations ut i l izes regulations to improve environmental quali ty. This amendment required that plazas be amenable, as wel l as accessible to the public. Specific guidelines aimed at improving the site-specific environmental quality of new plazas were developed. While the broader environmental quality issue of incorporating ecological principles into open space development is not expressed in New York 's regulations, they do address the very narrow concern of improving the s i te-specific environment. San Francisco's 1983 Downtown Plan expresses a broad understanding of si te-specific environmental quali ty. The Plan concentrates on improving the environmental quality of a l l open space components in the downtown. Specific standards are adopted for open space design. These standards are expressed in regulations such as Proposit ion K , which restr icts the height of buildings around public open space to ensure solar access. San Francisco's regulations presents an approach which sets si te-specific environmental standards and achieves those standards through regulations. - 8 7 -However, the objective of incorporating ecological principles into urban open space is not addressed. In Vancouver, in 1968, C i t y Counci l instructed the Technical Planning Board to take amenity into consideration when reviewing downtown projects for approval. The first direct expression of the environmental quality objective was contained in the 1 975 Downtown Of f i c i a l Development P lan . One goal of the plan was "to improve the general environment of the Downtown as an a t t ract ive place in which to l ive, work, shop and vis i t" (Ci ty of Vancouver 1975, p. 495). This goal was supported by the planning pol icy, "encourage developers to provide usable open spaces where pedestrian amenities should be high" (Ci ty of Vancouver 1980a, p . 4). However, neither the goal nor the planning policy are supported by specific regulations. In the 1979 Centra l Waterfront Of f ic ia l Development Plan , the issue of s i te-specific environmental quality finds l imited expression. One policy states, "the location height and massing of new development should minimize noon-hour shadowing onto the sunny areas of the Centra l Waterfront" (Ci ty of Vancouver 1979, p. 526). This policy has not been developed into specific sun and shadow standards, nor supported by specific regulations. Vancouver's two Off ic ia l Development Plans for the downtown do express the desire to improve environmental quali ty. However, this desire is not expressed through environmental standards or specific regulations. The objectives of - 88 -incorporating ecological principles into urban open space design is not expressed. The broad environmental quality issue of incorporating ecological principles into urban open space is not expressed in the regulations. With the exception of San Francisco's 1983 Downtown Plan , the existing regulations have concentrated on a narrow expression of si te-specific environmental quali ty. Therefore, the objective to develop urban open space to improve environmental quali ty, is not supported in the regulations. 4. Develop open space as a network. This objective is based on the perception that open space is not a long list of individual components but a continuous interrelated network. The continuous network of pedestrian c i rcula t ion and access, created by sidewalks, is the first l imited expression of urban open space as a network. One goal of the 1961 New York zoning regulations was to increase the quantity of open space downtown. This increase in quantity was accomplished through regulations aimed at expanding the basic open space network of sidewalks to include plazas. The regulations required the plazas to be accessible. The 1961 zoning regulations adopted by New York did not incorporate adequate standards to assure accessibl i ty. The 1975 amendment readdressed this issue to ensure that the plazas were not isolated open space components, but connected to the pedestrian access and c i rcula t ion system. The emphasis within the New - 8 9 -York regulations has consistently been on a narrow expression of open space as an access and c i rcula t ion system comprised of two elements - sidewalks and plazas. San Francisco's 1983 Downtown Plan di rect ly expresses this objective: "create an open space system accessible to and usable by everyone downtown" (Ci ty and County of San Francisco 1983, p. 57). To accomplish this objective the existing open space in downtown San Francisco was documented, areas deficient in open space identified and new open spaces proposed. The Plan encourages the creat ion of specified new open spaces and requires that they become part of the pedestrian system. In 1985, San Francisco introduced the Recreat ion and Open  Space P lan . This Plan places the downtown open space objectives, policies, and regulations expressed in the Downtown Plan , within the c i ty wide system of open space planning. San Francisco's Downtown Plan and Recreat ion and Open Space Plan represent an approach to achieving the open space network objective. Within the Plans, the open space network-objective is achieved through the actions of regulations. Vancouver's 1975 Downtown Dis t r i c t Of f ic ia l Development Plan states as one policy the implementation of an open space network concept. However, this policy is not supported by the development of an open space network concept or regulations aimed at creating that network. - 90 -Within the 1979 Centra l Waterfront Development Plan, emphasis is placed on the development of public open space. The open space is seen as part of a pedestrian walkway system that would connect the various elements in this area. However, specific standards for this system or regulations aimed at achieving it are not developed. Vancouver's two Of f i c i a l Development Plans for the downtown do express the desire to create an open space system. However, that desire is not expressed in a network concept or regulations aimed at achieving the concept. With the exception of San Francisco's 1983 Downtown Plan , the existing regulations have not fully expressed the objective to develop open space as a network. It is evident from the comparison that aspects of the four urban open space objectives find some expression in the regulations. New York's regulations emphasize specific controls without general objectives. Vancouver's plans contain part ial open space policies that are not supported by regulations. San Francisco's 1983 Downtown Plan contains the best examples of open space objectives that are achieved through the actions of regulations. - 91 -4.2 T H E P O T E N T I A L E F F E C T O F T H E O B J E C T I V E S O N T H E R E G U L A T I O N S This section outlines a decision-making process that would enable the narrow and effective actions of the regulations achieve the broad objectives identified for urban open space. Through the combined effect of objectives and regulations the goal of developing adequate and appropriate urban open space would be achieved. To ensure that the regulations support the objectives, a series of decisions in a descending order of importance and generality must be made. The first level of decision serves to refine the objective. For example, the first urban open space objective is to develop open space for public use. The first level of decision would be to determine what public uses are appropriate for the specific requirements of the part icular c i ty . Af t e r these first level decisions have been made factors c r i t i c a l to the real izat ion of the objective must be identified and defined. Detai led open space standards that reflect the objective must be developed. F ina l ly , the open space standards must be translated into regulations. These regulations would direct ly influence development and ensure that the open space standards are met and the open space objectives are achieved. It is the cumulat ive effect of the regulations on development that eventually results in the achievement of the objectives. Through this decision-making process, the big questions of: how much open space? where is it located? what type is i t? and how much does it cost? can be addressed, and adequate and appropriate open space defined. - 92 -The process of choice is s imilar for each urban open space objective. F i r s t , the objective is refined to suit the requirements of the part icular c i ty . Secondly, the standards are set that reflect the objective, and finally, the standards are translated into regulations. This process is repeated for each open space objective. 1. Develop urban open space for public use. The first decision level defines what forms of public use the c i ty considers appropriate. For example, Vancouver may decide to emphasize the public use of pedestrian access and c i rcula t ion . The next decision level set urban open space standards. A t this level Vancouver may decide that rain protection is a c r i t i c a l factor in encouraging the use of public sidewalks, and i f that is the case, rain protect ion standards would be determined. F ina l ly , these specific standards would be incorporated into the regulations. Through the enforcement of the regulations, the sidewalks would be protected from the rain and one c r i t i ca l factor identified as important to public use would be achieved. 2. Develop urban open space to shape the urban environment. The first decision level defines the kinds of urban environment the c i ty considers appropriate. For example, New York may decide to emphasize open space at ground level . The next decision level would set urban open space standards. A t this level New York may decide that v is ib i l i ty is one c r i t i ca l factor in emphasizing open space at ground level , and i f that is the case, v is ib i l i ty standards for open space would be determined. Fina l ly these specified standards would be incorporated into the regulations. Through the enforcement - 93 -of the regulations visible open space at ground level would be developed and one factor identified as important to the urban environment would be achieved. 3. Develop urban open space to improve environmental quality. The first decision level defines the nature of environmental quality a c i ty considers appropriate. For example, San Francisco may decide to incorporate ecological principles into urban open space development. The next decision level would set open space standards. A t this level San Francisco may decide that using plant communities rather than single plant species is a c r i t i c a l environmental quality factor, and i f that is the case, plant community standards would be determined. F ina l ly these specific standards would be incorporated into the regulations. Through the enforcement of the regulations the specified plant communities would be established and one c r i t i c a l factor identified as important to environmental quality would be achieved. 4. Develop urban open space as a network. The f irst decision level defines the nature of open space network the c i ty considers appropriate. For example, Vancouver may decide to expand the existing ground level open space network to include above ground level open spaces. The next decision level would set urban open space standards. A t this level Vancouver may decide that roof terraces are a c r i t i c a l component of the open space network, and i f that is the case, roof terrace standards would be determined. F ina l ly , these specific standards would be incorporated into the regulations. Through the enforcement of the regulations, roof terraces would be developed and one c r i t i c a l factor identified as important to the open space network would be achieved. - 94 -The underlying goal of the process of ar t iculat ing open space objectives and developing regulations that achieve the objectives is to enable ci t ies to exercise choice, to discuss and decide on the nature of urban open space, to become an effective participant in the development of the urban environment. The combined effect of objectives and regulations mean that c r i t i c a l decisions have been made and the subsequent developments are the result of those decisions. In ci t ies like New York , where regulations are developed without general objectives, a major effort is required to develop open space objectives and supporting regulations. An additional effort is required to bring the existing regulations into alignment with the objectives. Through this process the narrow focus, uniform results and reactionary character is t ics of the regulations would be replaced. In ci t ies like Vancouver, where open space policies are developed without supporting regulations, a major effort is required to clarify open space objectives and develop regulations that support the objectives. Without the open space objectives and supporting regulations, it is dif f icul t to exert a consistent, predetermined influence on the development of urban open space through policies and negotiation. In ci t ies like San Francisco, where both open space objectives and supporting regulations are developed, a major effort is required to monitor the effects of the objectives and regulations to ensure the continuing desirabili ty of the results. Therefore, through the decision-making process the combined effect of - 95 -urban open space objectives and urban regulations, c i t ies can define adequate and appropriate open space and influence development to create such spaces. - 96 -C H A P T E R 5 C O N C L U S I O N S Open space is a v i ta l component of the urban environment. Ensuring the provision of adequate and appropriate open space is an important c iv i c responsibility. In the past, c i t ies generally have ut i l ized zoning to influence open space development. This approach has not proved entirely satisfactory. Robert Cook describes: The public has come to recognize that private development decisions may have profound consequences for the public environ-ment. Indeed, the notion of dist inct public and private domains in c i ty centers is becoming blurred as more publicly accessible private spaces are created. As a result of these demands, tradit ional forms of land-use regulation - zoning and related development controls - have been expanded, adapted, refined and supplemented to accomplish new objectives. (Cook 1980, p. 151) Therefore, this thesis addresses the need to create adequate and appropriate open spaces, and asserts that through the combined effect of urban open space objectives and urban regulations such space w i l l be created. In part I of the thesis, the investigation into the regulatory histories of New York , San Francisco and Vancouver, identifies the effect of regulations on open space development and concludes that neither objectives nor regulations, act ing alone, are sufficient to ensure the development of adequate and appropriate urban open space. While regulations were specif ic , easy to interpret, and effect ive, they failed to respond to the complexit ies of urban open space development. The objectives while ar t iculat ing what constitutes adequate and appropriate urban open space, were unable to ensure adequate results and were di f f icul t to interpret direct ly into physical development. - 97 -In part 2 of the thesis, the investigation into what constitutes adequate and appropriate urban open space, concludes that there are four fundamental open space objectives: open space for public use; open space to shape the urban enviornment; open space to improve environmental quality; and open space as a network. These objectives have important implications for open space development. In part 3 of the thesis, the comparison of the proposed objectives and the existing regulations, concludes that, with the exception of the San Francisco example, there is a large gap between the proposed objectives and existing regulations. To bridge that gap, a new decision-making process is proposed. C i t i e s commit ted to the development of adequate and appropriate urban open space would make a series of c r i t i c a l decisions. Initially, the four proposed open space objectives would be refined to f i t the needs of the part icular c i t y . The subsequent decision level would develop standards that reflect the objective and finally these open space standards would be translated into regulations. These regulations direct ly influence development and ensure that the open space standards are met and the objectives are achieved. Through this process, it is possible for ci t ies to exercise choice and develop open space objectives and urban regulations to meet their needs for adequate and appropriate urban open space. - 98 -5.1 I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R P L A N N I N G Urban open space planning, in addition to defining specific urban open space objectives, developing regulations to achieve the objectives, involves two additional steps: the monitoring and evaluation of the results of the objectives and regulations on open space development; and the readjustment of the process if the results are not desired. The following implementation strategy is suggested to translate urban open space concerns into urban open space planning. Implementation Study 1. Set up a planning team responsible for open space: composed of pol i t ic ians, planners, landscape archi tects and ci t izens with the mandate to develop urban open space planning. 2. Provide urban open space information: develop a body of general open space information monitor the downtown environment take inventory of existing open space survey public use of open space. 3. Communicate the open space information: increase general awareness about urban open space develop a between-the-buildings tour institute a program of naming important open spaces undertake early education in schools about the urban environment. - 99 -4. Implement urban open space planning: set a goal and identify objectives for urban open space, translate the objectives into regulations co-ordinate and consolidate a l l c i v i c actions to ensure the development of adequate and appropriate urban open space. 5.2 F U T U R E S T U D Y Avenues for further study into the development of adequate and appropriate urban open space are: investigate the public use of open space, survey the users to determine their attitudes, needs and desires for urban open space; research the urban environment, investigate the quali ty, location and type of urban open space; analyze the economics of open space, determine the costs and benefits of urban open space. These areas of study represent the important gaps in open space information. - 100 -B I B L I O G R A P H Y Babcock, Richard . The Zoning Game: Municipal Prac t ices and Pol ic ies . Madison: The Universi ty of Wisconsin Press, 1966. Bacon, Edmund N . Design of C i t i e s . New York : The Viking Press, 1974. 3arnett , Jonathan. "Introduction to Par t III: Case Studies in Crea t ive Urban Zoning," in Marcus and Groves, eds. The New Zoning: Legal ,  Adminis t ra t ive , and Economic Concepts and Techniques. New Y o r k : Praeger Publishers, 1970. . An Introduction to Urban Design. New York : Harper & Row, 19892. Bartholomew, Harland. A Plan for the C i t y of Vancouver. Vancouver: Vancouver Town Planning Commission, 1928. C i t y and County of San Francisco . The Downtown Plan . San Francisco: The Planning Department, 1983. . Recreat ion and Open Space: Proposal for C i t i z e n Review. San Francisco: The Planning Department, 1985. C i t y of Vancouver. Zoning and Development By law, No. 3575. Vancouver: C i t y of Vancouver, I 956. . Zoning Plan for the Downtown A r e a . Vancouver: Technical Planning Board, 1961. . General Explanatory Memorandum: Zoning and Development 3y- law #3575. C i t y Planning Department, I 963. . Zoning and Development Bylaw #3575. Vancouver: C i t y of Vancouver I 969. . Zoning and Development Bylaw #3575. Vancouver: C i t y of Vancouver, I 975. . Zoning and Development Bylaw #3575. Vancouver: C i ty of Vancouver, 1979. . Downtown Guidelines i) Planning Pol ic ies . Vancouver: C i ty Planning Department, 1980a. . Downtown Guidelines ii) Downtown Guidelines. Vancouver: C i t y Planning Department, 1980b. - 101 -. Publ ic Plans and Pol ic ies For the Core . Vancouver: C i t y Planning Department, 1981a. Cook, Robert S. J r . Zoning for Downtown Urban Design: How Ci t i e s Control  Development. Toronto: Lexington Books, 1980. Cot ton , D . A . "Open Space: Its Value and Conservation in the New Urban Environment." Southern Ca l i fo rn ia Law Rev iew. X X X V I I , 1964. Cranz , Galen. "Changing roles of urban parks; from pleasure garden to open space." Landscape, 22, 3, pp. 9-18, 1978. Evenson, Norma. L e Corbusier: The Machine and the Grand Design. New York : George Braz i l l e r , 1969. Fonoroff, A l l e n . "Special Dis t r i c t s : A Departure F r o m the Concept of Uniform Controls ," in Marcus and Groves, eds. The New Zoning: Lega l ,  Adminis t ra t ive , and Economic Concepts and Technigues. New Y o r k : Praeger Publishers, 1970. Gal lion, Arthur B . The Urban Pat tern: C i t y Planning and Design. New York : Van Nostrand Company, I 963. Gold , Seymour M . Urban Recreat ional Planning. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, I 973. Halpern, Kenneth. Downtown U S A : Urban Design in Nine Amer ican C i t i e s . London: The Arch i t ec tu ra l Press L t d . , 1978. Halpr in , Lawrence. C i t i e s . Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1972. Hardwick, Walter G . Vancouver. New York : Macmi l lan Publishing C o . Inc., 1974. Hason, Nino. The Emergence and Development of Zoning Controls in North  Amer ican Municipal i t ies : C r i t i c a l Analysis . Toronto: Universi ty of Toronto, 1977. Heckscher, August. Open Spaces: The L i f e of Amer ican C i t i e s . New York : Harper and Row, I 977. Heyman, Michael I. "Innovative Land Regulat ion and Comprehensive Planning." in Marcus and Groves, eds. The New Zoning: Lega l , Adminis t ra t ive ,  and Economic Concepts and Technigues. New York : Praeger Publishers, 1970. Hough, Michae l . C i t y Form and Natural Process: Towards a New Urban  Vernacular. London: Croom He lm, 1984. - 102 -Hulchanski , J .D . Land Use Planning in Vancouver, Br i t i sh Columbia . Unpublished mimeograph. Toronto: Universi ty of Toronto, I 979. Ka lman , Harold. Exploring Vancouver 2. Vancouver: Universi ty of Br i t i sh Columbia Press, 1978. Krasnowiecki , Jan. "The Basic System of Land Use Cont ro l : Legis la t ive Preregulation vs. Adminis t ra t ive Discre t ion ," in Marcus and Groves, eds. The New Zoning: Lega l , Adminis t ra t ive , and Economic Concepts  and Technigues. New Y o r k : Praeger Publishers, 1970. Lynch , K e v i n . "The Openness of Open Space." Unpublished manuscript for Marcon Associates, Boston, I 963. . Good C i t y F o r m . Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1984. Roper, Laura Wood. F L O A Biography of Freder ick L a w Olmstead. Bal t imore : The Johns Hopkins Universi ty Press, 1983. Spirn, Ann Whiston. The Grani te Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design. New York : Basic Book, Inc., 1984. Whyte, W i l l i a m . "How to Make Midtown Livab le . " New York : New Yorker . March 9, 1981. Whyte, Wi l l iam H . The Social L i f e of Smal l Urban Spaces. Washington, D . C . : The Conservation Foundation, 1980. Wilkinson, Pau l . Urban Open Space Planning. Toronto: York Universi ty , 1983. Wright, Jack R . "Urban parks planning - a systems approach." Recreat ion  Canada, X X X I I , 2, pp. 35-41, 1974. , W . M . Bra i thwai te , and R . R . Foster . Planning for Urban Recreat ional Open Space: Toward Community Specific Standards. Toronto: Ontario Minis t ry of Housing, I 976. - 103 -A P P E N D I X I Downtown Vancouver Regulatory System's History 1886 Vancouver incorporated as a c i t y . 1900 Vancouver C i t y Counci l adopts the Ci ty ' s first building regulations. 1908 Vancouver adopts its first comprehensive building bylaw. 1921 Point Grey adopts a zoning bylaw, the first municipali ty in Canada to do so. 1924 South Vancouver adopts a zoning bylaw, almost identical to the Point Grey bylaw. 1926 Vancouver establishes a Town Planning Commission authorized to assist C i t y Counci l in an advisory capaci ty regarding the adoption and future amendments of a c i ty plan and zoning bylaw. The Commission hires Harland Bartholomew and Associates, C i t y Planners and Landscape Engineers from St. Louis, Missouri to prepare a master plan for the C i t y . 1927 Vancouver adopts the inter im Zoning bylaw #1830, and establishes the Zoning Board of Appeal . 1928 A Plan for the C i t y of Vancouver was completed by Harland Bartholomew and Associates. 1929 The three municipali t ies Point Grey, South Vancouver and Vancouver amalgamate to form the new C i t y of Vancouver. 1930 A Plan for the C i t y of Vancouver, B . C . , Including Point Grey and south  Vancouver and a General Plan for the Region was completed by Harland Bartholomew and Associates. This plan was not adopted by Counc i l . Vancouver adopted a new zoning bylaw #2516. This bylaw replaced bylaw #1830. 1948 Harland Bartholomew completed the revised Master Plan for Vancouver. This plan was not adopted by Counc i l . 1952 Vancouver established the Planning Department and the Technical Planning Board. 1956 Vancouver adopted the new Zoning and Development bylaw #3575. 1957 Vancouver's high density office and shopping core was rezoned (CM-2) Commerc ia l Dis t r ic t Schedule. - 104 -1960 Vancouver established the Board of Variance by bylaw #3844. 1961 The Zoning Plan for the Downtown Area was presented to Counc i l . The Plan was not adopted. Vancouver Tomorrow; Outline for the Preparation of a Plan - Draft for  Discussion was completed by the Planning Department. Redevelopment in Downtown Vancouver was completed by the Planning Department. I 964 Redevelopment in Downtown Vancouver, Report #5 was completed by the Planning Department. 1966 The Future of Vancouver Metropoli tan Core : Prel iminary Pol icy Plan was completed by the Vancouver Technical Planning Board. 1968 Downtown Vancouver: Par t I, the Issues was completed by the C i ty Planning Department. 1970 Downtown Vancouver - Development Concepts was completed by the C i t y Planning Department. 1972 Downtown Vancouver - Development Proposals was completed by the C i t y Planning Department. 1973 The C i t y Planning Department establishes the Downtown Study Team. 1974 Downtown Vancouver; Planning Concepts for Future Development and  Process for Control of Development - Report for Discussion was prepared by the Downtown Vancouver Study Team. 1975 The Centra l Area Divis ion is established by the Planning Department to cover the downtown core. Vancouver establishes the Development Permi t Board and the Develop-ment Permi t Advisory Panel Vancouver adopts the Downtown Dis t r i c t Of f ic ia l Development Plan plus Planning Pol ic ies , Design Guidelines and Character Areas. 1978 Review of Centra l Area Development Control Process was completed by the Planning Department. 1979 Vancouver adopts the Central Waterfront Dis t r ic t Off ic ia l Development  P lan . 1980 Goals for Vancouver is completed by the Vancouver C i t y Planning Commission. 1981 Public Plans and Pol ic ies for the Core is completed by the Planning Department. - 105 -1982 Changes in the Bui l t form of the Core is completed by the Planning Department. 1983 The Vancouver Coreolan: A Proposal for Discussion is prepared by the Planning Department. - 106 -APPENDIX II - S T U D Y A R E A D E V E L O P M E N T D A T E S Project Date of Development City of Vancouver Development Permit # Designer Source of Information Chris t Church Cathedral 690 Burrard Street 1889 - 1895 C O . Wickenden Kalman 1978, p. 106 Post Office 701 W. Hastings Street. 1905 - 1910 Department of Public Works Kalman 1978, p. 86 Provincia l Court House 800 W. Georgia Street 1906 - 1912 F . M . Rattenbury Dal ton & Eveleigh Kalman 1978, p. 104 Winch Building 739 W. Hastings Street 1908 - 1909 Hooper & Watkins Kalman 1978, p. 113 Pemberton Building 744 W. Hastings Street 1910 W . M . Somervel l Kalman 1978, p. 112 Vancouver Block 736 Granvil le Street 1910- 1912 Parr and Fee Kalman 1978, p. 83 Customs Warehouse 324 Howe Street 1911 - 1913 Department of Public Works Kalman 1978, p . 113 Vancouver Club 915 W. Hastings Street 1912 - 1914 Sharpe & Thompson Kalman 1978, p. 116 Project City of Vancouver Date of Development Development Permit # Designer Source of Information Metropolitan Building Terminal C i t y Club 837 W. Hastings Street 1912 Kalman 1978, p . 114 Credit Foncier Building 850 W. Hastings Street 1913 - 1914 H . L . Stevens & C o . Kalman 1978, p . 115 Hudson's Bay Company 600 Granvil le Street 1913 - 1926 Burke, Horwood & C o . Kalman 1978, p . 83 Ceperley Rounsefell C o . Building 846 W. Hastings Street 1921 Sharp & Thompson Kalman 1978, p. 115 Georgia Hotel 1801 -815 W. Georgia St. 1926 R . T . Gar row Vancouver Heritage Resource Inventory, March, 1985 B . C . and Yukon Chamber of Mines, 840 W. Hastings St. 1927 J . C . Day Kalman 1978, p . 114 Hotel Vancouver 900 W. Georgia Street 1928 - 1939 Archibald Schofield Kalman 1978, p. 105 Project City of Vancouver Date of Development Development Permit . Designer Source of Information Georgia Medical Dental Building 925 W. Georgia Street 1929 McCar te r & Nairne Kalman 1978, p . 106 University Club 1021 W. Hastings Street 1929 Kalman 1978, p. 118 Marine Building 355 Burrard Street 1929 - 1930 McCar te r & Nairne Kalman 1978, p. 117 Post Office Extension 325 Granvil le Street 1935 - 1939 McCar te r & Nairne Kalman 1978, p. 87 Canada Customs Building 1950- 1954 C . B . K . Van Norman Kalman 1978, p. 110 Burrard Building 1030 W. Georgia Street 1955 - 1956 C . B . K . Van Norman Kalman 1978, p . 107 Vancouver Public Library 750 Burrard Street 1956 - 1957 Semmens & Simpson Kalman 1978, p . 124 United Kingdom Building 409 Granvil le Street 1959 13262 D.C . Simpson C i ty Fi les Project Date of Development City of Vancouver Development Permit # Designer Source of Information Bental l //1 505 Burrard Street 1965 33926 Frank W. Musson Kalman 1978, p . 109 Bank of Canada 900 W. Hastings Street 1965 23246 Thompson, Berwick, Prat t and Partners Ka lman 1978, p. 116 Guinness Tower 1055 W. Hastings Street 1966 39973 C . Paine Kalman 1978, p . 118 Bental l it! 555 Burrard Street 1967 42443 Frank W. Musson Kalman 1978, p.. 109 Y W C A Building 580 Burrard Street 1967 - 1969 37250 Vladimir Plavsic and Associates Kalman 1978, p. 108 885 Dunsmuir 1967 43631 Ci ty F i les Mac Mi l lan Bloedel Building 1075 W. Georgia Street 1968 - 1969 37880-39079 Erickson, Massey, & Frank Donaldson Ka lman 1978, p . 108 Pac i f ic Centre Blocks 42 & 52 1969 - 1976 Victor Gruen & Associates Ka lman 1978, p. 81 Granvil le Square 200 Granvil le Street 1970 Frank Donaldson Kalman 1978, p . 87 Project Date of Development City of Vancouver Development Permit # Designer Source of Information Bental l #3 595 Burrard Street 1971 - 1972 54939 Frank W. Musson Kalman 1978, p. 109 Royal Centre 1055 W. Georgia Street 1971 - 1972 49558 Dirassar, James, Jorgenson, Davis Kalman 1978, p. 107 Pender Place 700 - 750 W. Pender St. 1972 587870 Underwood, M c K i n l e y , Wilson & Smith Kalman 1978, p. I l l Standard L i f e Building 625 Howe Street 1972 60823 McCar te r , Nairne & Partners C i ty Fi les Oceania Plaza 1033 W. Pender Street 1066 W. Hastings Street 1973 - 1974 62582 Charles Paine & Associates Ci ty Fi les 815 W. Hastings Street 1974 67344 Eng & Wright Kalman 1978, p. 114 Vancouver Centre (Scotia Tower) 650 W. Georgia Street 1974 Webb, Zerafa , Menkes Housden & Partners Kalman 1978, p. 82 595 Howe Street 1974 68507 Ci ty Fi les Court House - Ar t Gallery Complex 1974 Arthur Er ickson Kalman 1978, p. 104 Project Date of Development City of Vancouver Development Permit # Designer Source of Information Daon Building 999 W. Hastings Street 1977 76481 Musson, Ca t t e l 1 & Associates Ci ty Fi les Benta l l #k 1055 Dunsmuir Street 1978 82011 Musson, Ca t t e l 1 & Associates Kalman 1978, p. 109 800 Burrard Street 1978 82580 Eng & Wright Ci ty Fi les 815 Hornby Street 1978 80818 Black we 11 Design Group Ci ty Fi les 808 W. Hastings Street 1979 83115 Hamilton Doyle & Associates C i ty Fi les 865 Hornby Street 1979 84585 Romes, Kwan & Associates Ci ty Fi les Bank of Commerce 444 Burrard Street 1980 88758 Musson, Ca t t e l 1 & Associates Ci ty Fi les Park Place 600 Burrard Street 1980 89697 Musson Ca t t e l 1 & Associates Ci ty Fi les Manulife 3uilding 510 Burrard Street 1982 93703 Ci ty Fi les Project Date of Development City of Vancouver Development Permit Designer Source of Information Canada Harbour Place Piers 3 & C 1984 E . Zeidler & Downs Archambault C i ty Fi les Sinclair Center 701 W. Hastings Street 1984 R . Henriquez Ci ty Fi les 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097167/manifest

Comment

Related Items