Portland and Vancouver: Towers and Sustainability

Note:  The Following Op-Ed was recently submitted to The Oregonian in response to this article.

Michael Mehaffy and Suzanne Crowhurst Lennard's recent Op-Ed, "The Struggle of Portland Planners With Tower Envy", made several references to my city of Vancouver, British Columbia, in its efforts to dissuade readers from the appropriateness of towers  in Portland.  Three erroneous claims were made about Vancouver in particular and tower construction in general; these demand a rebuttal.

Claim One:  Tower construction in Vancouver is financed largely by wealthy Chinese part-time expatriates, contributing to making Vancouver one of the least affordable cities in the world.  According to a recent article in The Globe and Mail, the best available data from our local real estate board suggests that just 1 to 4 percent of real estate sales in the Vancouver region involve foreign investors *from any country.* Another reputable source cited in this article estimated that just 0.2% of local home purchases were made by buyers living outside of Canada.  These figures make it obvious that tower construction is not "financed largely by wealthy Chinese part-time expatriates", as claimed; in fact, the overwhelming majority of Chinese people who move to Vancouver are settling permanently. 

Although real estate in Vancouver can be expensive, simple economics suggests that the large supply of condos in towers has probably kept housing prices lower than they otherwise would be for this section of the market since demand is more easily satisfied and a situation of scarcity has been prevented.  Single-detached houses, particularly within city limits, are far more expensive than condominiums, a fact that can be partially attributed to the lack of new detached house supply in a city that is fully urbanized.  As of September, Vancouver West- the portion of the city that contains the both the downtown peninsula with its condo towers and several established single family residential neighbourhoods- saw a benchmark condo sale price of approximately $475,000 while single detached houses had a benchmark sales price of approximately $2,100,000.  On a per-square-foot basis, condo prices in newer low-rise and mid-rise buildings- especially if constructed with concrete- are often higher than similar units in towers.

Affordability issues can't be blamed on towers, which are built in response to demand for housing in a geographically-constrained city experiencing a high rate of population growth.

Claim Two:  Towers experience livability issues and residents struggle with social isolation.  Livability, while somewhat subjective, varies widely across *all* housing forms:  there are highly livable towers and undesirable towers, and the same variation applies to townhouses and detached houses as well.  Many towers in Manhattan offer residents a strong sense of community, but certain low-income housing towers for seniors are not designed for optimal resident interactions.  In Portland, single-family neighbourhoods in the southeast section of the city encourage walking and social interaction at a higher rate than new communities near the fringe of the urban growth boundary.

Several towers in Vancouver offer amenities that encourage community interaction.  Basement bowling alleys are popular in some towers, particularly those built by local developer Concord Pacific.  Other buildings feature well-appointed community rooms with amenities like pool tables and libraries, and nearly every tower features nicely-appointed lobbies with seating areas as well as exercise facilities.  I once resided in a tower in nearby Victoria that offered its residents a table tennis club, a "Saturday Night" club that met in the lobby and walked to various local restaurants, and various social events ranging from viewing parties for special televised events to outdoor barbecues. 

From a development perspective, the cost of providing community-building amenities is much more feasible in high-rise developments:  the construction costs of these amenities can be spread across more units than would be possible in a low-rise development.  Once a tower is occupied, the cost of operating community amenities is absorbed by a large pool of owners via monthly maintenance fees.  Home builders know that the cost of operating and maintaining a bowling alley or residential movie theatre would place an undue financial burden on the condo owners of a 4-storey building, so low-rises are typically built without such features.

Claim Three:  Condo towers, especially those of a certain height, are not environmentally sustainable.  Condominium towers can be built in a sustainable way, and in Vancouver, that is the norm:  towers that require a rezoning (typically to allow more height or density) must be built to LEED Gold standard, and many  other local towers achieve LEED silver, gold, or platinum ratings.  All new Vancouver buildings- including high-rises- built after 2020 will be required to be carbon neutral.  Energy efficient floor-to-ceiling windows can actually reduce electricity usage by allowing more natural light, an important consideration in an often cloudy and rainy city like Vancouver; obviously, towers in cities like Miami and San Diego should likely minimize the incorporation of this feature.  But towers have other environmental advantages that can be easy to overlook, such as the fact that the provision of energy-efficient green roofs can be easier to achieve in a high-rise building due to the roof requiring much less- and flatter- surface area than a low-rise building containing a similar number of units.

In the extremely important realm of carbon emissions, cities with a large number of tall buildings can outperform metropolitan areas that are predominately low-rise.  Vancouver's per-capita carbon emissions, at 4.6 tonnes per person, are the lowest in North America.  In the United States, residents of New York City - which has the world's biggest skyline- produce fewer carbon emissions than residents of any other American city (6.4 tonnes per person vs. the US average of about 17 tonnes per capita).  Although other factors contribute to the environmental performance of Vancouver and New York, such as Vancouver's near-total reliance on renewable energy for buildings, the high density associated with towers contributes to increased ridership on public transit.  Over the last decade, as condo tower construction has boomed in Vancouver, transit ridership has increased by 84% to 1.19 million rides per day; by comparison, Portland's Tri-Met- which operates a rapid transit system similar in length to Vancouver's and serves a metropolitan region with a similar population- served just 322,000 riders per day in the most recent quarter.  Not surprisingly, Vancouver's condo tower boom has allowed the city to achieve the third-highest population density in North America (13,600 per square mile vs. 4,400 per square mile in Portland), a factor correlated with Vancouver's high rate of transit ridership.

The author contends that a livable form of high urban density can also be achieved by following the Paris model, which is generally understood to be comprised of apartment buildings of up to 6 storeys with no setbacks and minimal spacing between buildings.  While I love Paris, its urban form negatively impacts sustainability in one important way:  the land area required to achieve high density while avoiding tower constructions means that there is little room left for a significant urban tree canopy.  Although Paris is the most heavily wooded European capital, its tree count of 478,000 is equivalent to 1/3 of the estimated number of trees in Vancouver (1.5 million).  Put another way,,Paris is only able to offer one tree per every 22 residents whereas Vancouver has almost 2 1/2 trees for every man, woman, and child.  The tower form, which can achieve high density while requiring less land than low rise buildings, leaves more room for trees.

Conclusion

I feel an affinity for Portland and my travels there have left me with the sense  that many Portlanders love Vancouver.  The two cities share more in common with each other than they do with Seattle:  Portland and Vancouver each boast economies dominated by small businesses, neighbourhoods actively engaged in civic planning, decisions against urban freeway development in the 1970s, geographic citing along heavily industrialized rivers, rapid transit systems launched in the mid-1980s, and regional populations that are similar in size.  Vancouver has learned much from Portland, as evidenced by our growing number of local food carts and increasing infrastructure for bicyclists.  In return, Vancouver can be a model for Portland in terms of incorporating sustainable high-rise residential development into its urban mix to compliment Portland's existing houses, townhouses, and low-rise/mid-rise apartments.

Modern Gas

I've long been a fan of the work of realist painter Edward Hopper, whose 1940 canvas "Gas" is a masterpiece of subtlety.  The lone station attendant seems much older than the typical pump operator, and a feeling of loneliness permeates the painting:  dark woods are just around the corner, and the road itself is eerily vacant.  Perhaps the most welcoming element in the painting is the actual station building itself, which emits an unexpectedly warm light.  Furthermore, the building's design is clearly evocative of two types of communal structures typically found in New England, Hopper's home region and the setting of the painting:  the town hall and the colonial church.

Alas, the contemporary descendants of the gas station depicted by Hopper lack its charm, detail, and attention to design.  In fact, modern gas stations tend to be amongst the most poorly-designed structures in modern cities, especially in places like the City of Vancouver, where a combination of high land prices and a structured, effective regulatory regime have generally tamed the other usual suspects (strip malls, big boxes, etc.).  

But it doesn't have to be this way.

Bad Gas

This Shell station, located in the fast-growing Southeast False Creek area, is typical of most stations currently in Vancouver.  The awning, intended to shelter customers from the frequent rain, is made primarily of aluminum and constitutes a rectangular plane held up by utterly utilitarian columns.  The station's branding colours (yellow and red) and prominently displayed on the awning and reappear on the equally rectangular "Snack Shop" convenience store; competing stations, such as those affiliated with Petro Canada and Husky, employ similar branding tactics.  The remainder of the site is mostly comprised of concrete and asphalt parking/driving areas, save for a small area devoted to the station's sign and gas price display; luckily, height controls ensure that the sign isn't much taller than an awning, preventing the ultra-high station signs common along highways in other areas.  Overall, the design does not respond to its context or surroundings, and the same forms and elements appear at all Vancouver Shell stations regardless of their neighbourhood/location within the city.

From a financial standpoint, the most curious aspect of this station is the minimal attention paid to the convenience store.  Gasoline is a notoriously low-margin product, so stations must depend on convenience stores or attached repair garages for the overwhelming majority of their profits.  This convenience store's design makes little attempt to draw in customers:  approximately half of the facade is made up of white paneling, and interior amenities that might persuade customers to linger a while- such as attractive seating and lighting- are absent.  A busy bus stop is located on the adjacent sidewalk (riders are waiting for it on the left side of this photo), but the store's orientation and placement does little to encourage patronage from this potential pool of customers.

Past Gas

Like the subject of Hopper's painting, this structure- one of the first gas station/garage combinations built in the City of Vancouver- displays better design than its modern counterparts.  Most obviously, it is constructed primarily of brick, and the material is even used at the tip of the structure in the support columns for the portico.  The building's architect, who later designed Vancouver's city hall, created an apartment for the station's owners on the second storey.  Like the famous Flatiron building, the site occupies a corner lot on a diagonal intersection, so the garage building becomes wider as it retreats from the portico.

I wonder if Jan Gehl, the famed Copenhagen planner and author of *Cities for People*, would see irony in the fact that this building is currently being used as a funeral home.  At one time garage mechanics working here diagnosed some vehicles as being "beyond repair", sealing their fates and consigning them to the scrap heap.  Now the current business at this site helps its customers face the realities of a different kind of death.

Gas to the Future

Vancouver, like the rest of Canada, has witnessed a sharp decline in the number of gas stations in recent decades.  The city hosted 328 gas stations in 1970; as of early 2012, that number had fallen to 84.  Since the late 1980s, the number of gas stations in Canada has fallen from approximately 20,000 to less than 13,000.

  

A number of factors have contributed to this decline.  As many others have pointed out, the high cost of land in urban  centres, where a substantial chunk of the population resides, is an obvious deterrent to the construction of new stations.  Despite the expense of soil remediation, some former gas stations in Vancouver will soon be home to new condo and/or retail developments.  Industry consolidation has reduced the number of independent operators, and smaller stations with 1 or 2 pumps closed under competitive pressure from larger stations.  As mentioned previously, gasoline sales are an extremely low-margin business, so stations that were unable to attract customers to their food-and-beverage or garage businesses were doomed.  Fuel efficiency, which declined in the 1990s, has been increasing again, so many drivers require less-frequent fill ups.  And- at least in Vancouver proper- actual driving seems to be on the decline:  the number of vehicles entering downtown has fallen to levels last seen in 1965 (despite significant increases in retail, residential, and office development) and Translink, the region's public transit agency, has seen ridership increases of 84% in the last decade.

So, in Vancouver, regulating the development of new gas stations will do little to change the overall physical environment of the city since it is unlikely that new stations will be built.   The real opportunity for change exists in the development of design guidelines for station renovations.  It seems likely that the remaining station owners themselves may already be planning to undertake some changes to remain competitive over the next decade; fuel economy standards are mandating even greater efficiency and electric cars, especially those produced by California upstart Tesla, are poised for significant increases in market share.  Given that a wave of renovations may be coming, the establishment of design guidelines now would be well-timed.

What should the guidelines encourage?  It seems obvious that a de-emphasis on gasoline sales would benefit station owners while offering asthetic opportunities.  For example, electric vehicle charging stations require much less space than gasoline pumps, so guidelines could encourage their design to be as sleek and elegant as possible.  Given the increasing popularity of bicycling, stations with garages may opt to convert some service bays to bicycle repair stations; design guidelines should encourage smaller and/or more decorative sliding door installations for these bays.  Other opportunities exist in the updating of retail buildings.  To better accomodate non-motorists, the city should recommend structual expansion to property lines where possible so that pedestrians could enter stores directly from sidewalks.  And guidelines should suggest the use of neighbourhood-appropriate building materials and designs for the retail buildings as well environmentally-friendly features such as green roofs and softer LED lighting.  Finally, the city should recommend the incorporation of coffee shops and cafes into the retail structures, which would be accompanied by welcoming interiors.

Thoughts on a Towering Proposal for Grandview-Woodlands

The City of Vancouver is currently engaged in a community planning process for the Grandview-Woodlands neighbourhood, which is commercially dominated by the eclectic mix of coffee shops (at least a dozen), restaurants, and retailers on the appropriately-named Commercial Drive.  The process has not been without controversy, however, as planning staff have proposed adding a new form of density to the densely-populated area:  high-rise residential towers in the blocks adjacent to the Broadway-Commercial SkyTrain station.  Several residents have voiced loud opposition to the concept and height of the proposed towers.  While I agree that the proposed height of at least one tower (36 storeys) could be lowered to address community concerns, I think that the neighbourhood would benefit from the construction of several towers near the Skytrain station.

Background

Vancouver is well known in planning circles for "Vancouverism", a paradigm that combines narrow high rise residential towers with 'pedestal' bases of 2-6 storeys.  The pedestals typically contain townhouses and other apartments combined with street-level retail along high street frontages.  The concept was introduced in the late 1980s to guide the redevelopment of the former industrial lands that make up the Yaletown portion of the downtown peninsula.  Towers-with-pedestals proved very popular (many condo developments quickly sold out while the area saw an enormous increase in neighbourhood-and region-serving retail) and the concept was then extended to other redeveloping precincts in the city centre:  Coal Harbour, International Village, and Downtown South.  It was also incorporated into several new infill projects along the Burrard and Georgia Street edges of the West End.

The success of Vancouverism has resulted in a downtown peninsula population exceeding 100,000 residents, meaning that the urban core is home to about 1 out of every 6 people in this city of just over 600,000 (figures are based on the 2011 Census).  By comparison, Chicago- which has the fastest-growing downtown population in the US (based on figures from the 2010 US Census), has a downtown population of 141,000; given that the city is home to 2.7 million residents, just 1 out of every 19 Chicagoans lives in the central city (though this ratio is expected to increase as many neighbourhoods on the south and west sides of Chicago are losing population).  If towers and other forms of development succeed in adding another 50,000 residents to Vancouver's current city centre population, the downtown population density will be approximately equal to the overall density of Manhattan:  27,000 per square kilometre or 70,500 per square mile.

Residential towers of 12 or more storeys have been part of the fabric of a few non-downtown Vancouver neighbourhoods dating back to the mid 20th century:  Kerrisdale, Kitsilano, and Fairview saw the erection of modernist buildings in the 1950s and 1960s.  The newer tower-with-podium style of development has also been replicated outside of downtown proper, most notably in the Renfrew-Collingwood neighbourhood near the Joyce-Collingwood Skytrain station.  It has also appeared in Fairview and Southeast False Creek, and developments of this style are under construction or proposed for several other areas.

Advantages of Vancouverism

Vancouver's planners and other advocates of the form have long championed the virtues of tower-and-podium form, and they are worth briefly mentioning here.   The slenderness of the towers allows for the protection of water and mountain views while the podiums ensure that the towers are placed far enough apart to ensure residential privacy.  The towers themselves feature units with large windows that are designed to maximize natural light, an important consideration in a region not known for its sunniness.  Meanwhile, the townhouse components of the podium accommodate residents who prefer ground-oriented housing and are ideal for families with children.  The podiums also create a pedestrian-friendly street wall while the rooftops of the podium can provide a variety of resident amenities:  private decks, vegetable gardens, or even off-leash dog areas.

Vancouverism Outside Downtown:  Motivations and Appropriate Siting

The primary motivations for expanding towers-with-podiums outside of the downtown peninsula are environmental in nature.  Various city and regional plans have advocated densification as a means of achieving and reinforcing walkability, transit utilization, and proximity to employment (almost 2/3 of the office space in the region is in downtown Vancouver and the nearby Broadway corridor). Vancouver's population is growing rapidly, and densification eases development pressures on natural and agricultural lands in the city's suburbs. 

But as opponents of the Grandview-Woodlands rezoning initiative have noted, densification can encompass many forms.  I certainly think that towers-with-podiums are only appropriate for certain non-downtown sites, and I propose that these can easily be identified by two characteristics:  proximity to a (current or planned) Skytrain rapid transit station and geographic settings offering water, mountain, and/or skyline views to tower residents.  Areas lacking either of these characteristics are inappropriate, and two local examples spring to mind immediately.  The Dunbar area on the city's west side would likely offer tower residents spectacular views of downtown, the North Shore Mountains, the Fraser River, and even Vancouver Island (in the distance on clear days).  However, the area lacks rapid transit, though the primary bus routes serving the area (#7 and #41) are heavily utilized.  Conversely, the area near the Renfrew and Rupert Skytrain stations in the northeast sector is served by the Millennium Line but sits in a valley.  Only the highest tower floors would enjoy a view; residents of the first several floors of such a hypothetical tower would look directly onto the detached houses and yards built along the valley slope.

By using these criteria, one can easily conclude that some towers-with-podiums have already been built or are under construction in less than optimal locations in certain Vancouver neighbourhoods.

Towers in Grandview-Woodlands:  A Winning Proposition

The City of Vancouver’s initial proposal to add towers adjacent to the Broadway-Commercial Drive Skytrain Station would place thousands of residents next-door to a wealth of transit options.  The station itself offers direct access to downtown Vancouver and Surrey, the region’s most populous suburb, via the Expo line. The station also offers access to the Millennium Line, which serves Vancouver Community College, Simon Fraser University, and several retail and residential districts in the suburbs of Burnaby and New Westminster.  The Evergreen Line, which is under construction, will provide one-train service from Broadway-Commercial Drive to the northeast suburbs of Port Moody and Coquitlam.  The station is also served by two trolley bus lines and the 99-B line, which provides quick access to Vancouver’s west side and UBC. 

The area would also offer tower residents spectacular views of the North Shore Mountains, downtown Vancouver, and False Creek. Intercity passenger rail tracks and a significant industrial corridor separate the neighbourhood from the city centre, so it is likely that views of the downtown skyline would be maintained well into the future as opportunities for other high-rise development in the view corridor are limited.

This form of development would give current and future neighbourhood residents a new type of housing option.  Current housing stock is primarily limited to detached single-family homes, subdivided rental accommodations, purpose-built condo and apartment buildings of not more than 4 storeys (some with retail space on the first floor), and townhouse developments.  All of this existing housing stock is of wood-framed construction, so towers-with-podiums would provide a steel-and-concrete alternative.  This type of construction is also well-suited to noise suppression, an important consideration in an area where one of the Skytrain lines runs on elevated tracks.  Furthermore, residents would potentially be able to enjoy amenities that are generally not provided in the area’s existing apartment and condo buildings, such as fitness facilities and party/community rooms (these types of amenities generally require a large resident base for economic reasons).   Finally, the tower podiums could offer a combination of family-oriented housing and additional retail/restaurant space for the community.

It has been noted that the Commercial-Broadway Skytrain station is the busiest station in the system, while the 99B bus line- which starts and terminates there- is the busiest bus route in North America with approximately 54,000 daily boardings.  Capacity issues at the station will be addressed via a planned station expansion:  Translink will purchase the adjacent supermarket and demolish it to accommodate an additional platform and a new ground-level concourse.  It is also important to note plans to extend the existing Millennium Line to UBC (construction may start upon completion of the Evergreen Line in 2016); this endeavour would replace the 99B bus line and instantly accommodate 250,000 daily boardings, based on ridership projections.

The placement of the towers makes sense from a community context perspective as well.  The towers would enhance and enliven the community immediately south of the Millennium Line tracks while leaving intact the vibrant low-rise area just north of the tracks. 

In conclusion, I feel that the placement of towers-with-podiums near the Commercial-Broadway Skytrain station will benefit the neighbourhood community and the City of Vancouver while providing environmental benefits- via the placement of new residents in a walkable community well-served by mass transit- to the entire region.