On October 26, 1995 Vancouver City Council voted to remove an 80 acre waterfront site from industrial use (approximately 50 acres of this is city-owned). Council has directed that this land be developed to incorporate and, ideally, "model" sustainable development principles. To that end the Central Area Planning Branch struck a multi-stakeholder representative Policy Advisory Group, commissioned a number of studies and reports⁽¹⁾, and held a design charrette to inform the project planning process. The following report summarizes the process and outcomes of the Southeast False Creek Design Charrette. The first section provides an overview of the charrette design and preparatory materials; subsequent sections summarize the outcomes and benefits of the charrette.

BY DESIGN

In October 1998, the City of Vancouver Central Area Planning Department and its consultants organized a three-day, multi-disciplinary design charrette focussed on the redevelopment of city-owned lands in Southeast False Creek (SEFC hereafter). Twenty-one professional architects, landscape architects, engineers, developers and planner-regulators (including four out-of-city participants), and twelve students, were organized into three design teams charged with providing various design options for evolving a sustainable community in SEFC.

The Teams

Participants (Exhibit 1, p.13) were suggested by consultants and City staff. Selection criteria included: (1) understanding of the concept and principles of sustainable development, knowledge of implementation strategies and approaches; and awareness of issues arising out of implementation attempts; (2) strong communication skills including interpersonal and group process skills and ability to work in teams; and (3) specialized knowledge and experience appropriate to the desired team profile. Each Design Team included two architects (one experienced in large scale urban development projects generally of the more conventional/traditional form, and one with knowledge and experience in 'green' planning and 'new urbanism'); two landscape architects (following the same profile as architects); an engineer; a developer/development consultant; a planner/regulator; and four UBC students (2 from architecture and 2 from landscape architecture). All student participants had completed a design 'studio' focussed on SEFC prior to the event. A Resource Team supported Design Teams with additional specialist knowledge in such areas as: alternative building design, energy efficiency and alternatives, transportation, aquatic habitat, and contaminated soils.

Design Team members functioned as equal partners using a shared leadership, co-creative approach. Each team was responsible for testing policy by generating design options for SEFC and giving particular attention to areas where policies might be overly restrictive or insufficiently specific in providing direction for the development of a sustainable community. Planner/regulators on each team were responsible for documenting discussions and decision-making processes related to policy issues. Students participated as apprentice members of the team; they shared information gained from their studio experience (which was guided by the same design program as the one used in the charrette); provided help as instructed to complete charrette tasks; and provided additional 'hands' for drawing and other visual requirements. The Resource Team, in addition to providing information and support as requested by Design Teams, were also asked to engage in two additional tasks: the articulation of key issues, and a critical examination of policy areas particular to their areas of expertise. The process design consultant acted as choreographer/facilitator of the event.

Organization

The charrette required an organizational structure defined to a sufficient level of detail so that the diversity of participants could work together, essentially "reading from the same page," to create a smooth running event and to achieve intended outcomes. In advance of the charrette, all participants were provided with: 1: a design brief⁽²⁾ describing the charrette goal, objectives, key issues and performance criteria; 2: an orientation package⁽³⁾ including the charrette agenda (Exhibit 2, p.15), team information, specification of roles and responsibilities, and various background papers including copies of the key source documents⁽⁴⁾ that informed development of the design brief; and 3: opportunities for site visits prior to the opening of the charrette so that they could become familiar with the site environment and context. At the start of the charrette, participants were provided with a 'cheat sheet' of issues to be dealt with (Exhibit 3, p.17 ); a summary sheet for recording their answers to key questions (refer Exhibit 4, p.19) and a list of expected drawings to be produced during the charrette (Exhibit 5, p.21). Members of the Resource Team also provided various inputs during the charrette. (For a complete list of materials distributed, see Exhibit 6, p.22)

Goals and Objectives

The primary goal of this charrette was to provide Council, staff, consultants and the larger community with different design options for the site, each of which represents a clear vision of what a community built in conformance with the proposed policies would be like. Charrette objectives included:

1. To test the efficacy of those aspects of the proposed policy statement and the performance targets that would be manifest in urban design before an attempt is made to apply them.

2. To create a setting in which leading British Columbia designers can exchange ideas and viewpoints with outside experts in the field of sustainable design.

3. To establish new, more sustainable, urban typologies in order to guide the planning and design of this site. These typologies would then be used as prototypes for other sites.

4. To illuminate the connection between sustainability and liveability.

5. To make the sustainability functions of the site both transparent and didactic so that SEFC can serve its residents as well as educate the world.

Key Issues, Requirements & Targets

Key issues, performance requirements and targets were outlined in detail in a Design Brief which constituted the charrette 'program.' In order to ensure that design solutions represented not only personal visions of team members, but also the teams' interpretation of the City's key objectives, the Design Brief was based, primarily, on two key documents:

1. Urban Sustainable Development: Southeast False Creek -- a City Staff prepared summary of Vision, Tools and Targets, a commissioned study that identified a score of different measurable sustainability performance targets for SEFC; and
2. Southeast False Creek Sustainable Neighbourhood: A Policy Statement to Guide Development (Draft)

In addition to the collective expertise of the teams, another 'team' was brought together during the charrette to ensure that all of the Design Teams had the benefit of particular kinds of knowledge and experience. This additional team⁽⁵⁾ included the three design-team engineers and three engineers from the Resource Team. The group met for approximately two hours to share knowledge of state-of-the-art technologies and evolving approaches, and to discuss strategies and cost/benefit issues regarding water and waste management/treatment; bio-remediation; energy; monitoring; and other concerns related to the creation and maintenance of an ecological infrastructure and community sustainability in SEFC. Their discussions had implications across performance criteria and were invaluable to the formation of Design Team solutions.

OUTCOMES

The presentations illuminated solutions and issues that Teams felt were important to explore and test. The drawings and summary reports of each Design Team constitute the primary products of the charrette (See Appendix B). Not including various reports generated subsequent to the charrette, additional 'products' include still-photo and video records of team work during the charrette, and a full video record of team presentations. Based on the Design Teams' summary reports, the following provides a brief synthesis of the ways in which teams responded to design objectives and targets provided in the Design Brief.

Land and Water

Rainwater. All of the teams' designs met the objectives of 100% recharge and system visibility. Collection and cleaning was achieved via rooftop capture (two teams), swales & some form of marsh, reed bed, lagoon, and/or estuary; Team 3 team noted that leaching may reduce the possibility of 100% treatment. Captured rainwater (as well as greywater) was intended for re-use in irrigation and toilets; Team 2 indicated the possibility of future water purification sufficient to support domestic supply.

Working Open Space All teams attended to the ideas of habitat, recreation and "working green" objectives and, in a manner of speaking, met the 2.75 acres/1000 population target. In general, the teams met the target by taking a creative and transformative approach to more traditional notions of 'open space' and by declaring open space to be part of the foundational ecological infrastructure of the site. Approaches incorporated private and community gardens, urban agriculture, water treatment and re-use, and opportunities for recreation and education of benefit to the immediate community, surrounding neighborhoods and the City as a whole. In general, spaces varied from urban (courtyards, quiet enclaves) to heavily landscaped.

Soil. All teams struggled with the issue of contaminated soils; they had to proceed without definitive information ("there are no data fairies here") and, therefore, under conditions of uncertainty. All teams capped certain areas of the site (particularly the northwest area of the site) and approached design with onsite remediation as a basic premise. On this note, Team 2 incorporated a berm/hill as depository of heavy metal soils in west end of the site; Team 3 suggested an east-west phased development approach to take advantage of quickly evolving soil remediation technology for the latter stages of the development where soils are most problematic. It was noted that all ecosystem restoration efforts and drainage systems are to be constructed above contaminated soils.

The Built Environment

The Public Green. Working Open Space becomes part of the Public Green in all designs and the notion of "green is blue is green" points to the incorporation of water features as a key component of the public green. Teams included roof gardens (one team has all roofs planted and includes some vertical planting on south and west walls), courtyards, and, with concern for urban food security in mind, areas for urban agriculture. In general, the idea of 'continuous swath' versus 'nodes' of green is reflected in all designs. Green spaces occur in every portion of the community and are brought to buildings via path/roadway swales which also connect the community and surrounding neighborhood to the water front.

'Seawall' treatments varied across teams although all tended toward a softer, more natural edge hospitable to a range of species. All teams also explored the possibility of revealing the historic shoreline edge, most notably near the Canron Building, and making that area a site focal point, even a 'destination location' for the community and surround. For example, in one design the existing slip is enlarged into an inlet and freshwater wetland which also serves as part of the blackwater treatment system.

Residences. Teams had no apparent difficulty in achieving (or exceeding) housing requirements for 5000 residents and accommodating, even encouraging, a diversity of age, family type, tenure-type, and income levels. This is evidenced by the range of building types (townhouse, apartment, lofts, live/work, rental), convenience of access to services, and location of schools and daycare. Number of units proposed range from 3000-3500.

Parking. Soil conditions were a primary consideration in locating parking areas. All teams placed underground garages (and most parking generally) in mixed use buildings along 1^st Avenue. On-street parking was key to all designs; permeable surfaces with linkages to treatment lagoons/marshes were emphasized. Team 2 included some smaller parking pockets in car-tolerant access ways. All teams met the "1 space per unit" target but all also expressed the view that the needs in this community may be less and that a lower standard may be viable.

Commercial Life. To reduce the need for automobile use and to create a more 'complete' community, all teams sought to provide all daily retail and service needs on-site. In the main, commercial life (retail, services) was concentrated along 1^st Avenue with additional opportunities around the Domtar/Community Center. Office space was focussed along 1^st Avenue, primarily, with home office and live/work combinations throughout the site. Industry was interpreted by all teams to mean 'light' industry (including workshops similar to Granville Island). Two teams integrated industrial and workshop activities into mixed-use buildings mainly along 1^st Ave; the third team placed a 200M sq.ft non-noxious type of industrial workshop in a flexible courtyard next to the Cambie Street Bridge. Space allocations, excluding live/work spaces, ranged from 100M-200M sq.ft for retail and service; 25M-200M sq.ft for offices; and 50M-200M sq.ft. for industry.

School The vision of a 'community school,' that is, a school with facilities available to the public during non-class hours, was common to all teams. Two teams located the school within the 'heart' of the community directly associated with the Domtar Community Centre (one team incorporated the school as part of the mixed-use building; the other established the school as a separate building). Both of these teams spoke of the opportunities such siting would provide for children's contextual learning and for bringing the broader community together. The third team (Team 1) took a different approach, creating another site focal point by locating a free-standing school in the western edge of the site adjoining a treatment marsh (educational opportunity) and oriented to downtown views as a connection to the larger community within which SEFC is embedded. What is most significant about all of teams' approaches is the way in which the school is intended to be almost seamlessly interwoven with the life of the community as a whole.

Community Centre. The Domtar Heritage Building, set on or near an enlarged inlet, was identified by all teams as the 'heart' or 'nerve center' of the site. The Domtar Building was imagined as a multi-purpose activity community center providing a variety of programs and spaces for local groups within the greater neighborhood (e.g., the Mount Pleasant Community Arts Resource Centre) and including, possibly, a public market. Team 1 also proposed two additional 'centers' around the inlet. The first, a boathouse on the waterfront at the north end of the inlet, would support small boat and kayak activity and storage, and serve as a focal point for water-oriented civic celebrations in addition to providing spaces similar to those found in the Domtar Building. The second, "the Crystal Palace", a solar aquatic blackwater treatment and greenhouse facility, was located at 1^st Avenue; it would serve as an example of a functioning 'living machine', as an education facility, and as both a destination feature and gateway to the site. Together with the Domtar Community Centre, these two additional 'centers' are welcoming invitations to the surrounding neighborhoods and the City at large.

Daycare. All teams incorporated daycare in some form of mixed-use buildings. Two teams placed daycare in the vicinity of, or adjoining, the Domtar Building (one team placed daycare in a live-work building; the other incorporated daycare with the school in a multi-purpose facility). One team (Team 2) proposed three daycare facilities, each serving one of the primary sub-districts of the site; like the other two teams, one of the facilities was associated with the Community Centre.

Street Design. There were slight variants in each team's response to the car -- "car embraced, not banned"; "car tolerant, not car-driven design"; "accept the car but control it... don't be mastered by it" -- and in their subsequent designs (See Figure 1). Notwithstanding, all teams' extended existing north-south streets into the site, and all designs reflected a tendency towards reducing the primacy of the car, making it secondary to circulation needs of pedestrians and foot-wheeled movement. Design approaches included minimized road widths, a range of traffic calming measures, reduced vehicle movement and access within the site, and discouragement of traffic on interior streets. Public transit use was supported via widened sidewalks and pedestrian surfaces placed at all stops served by the anticipated street car running along 1^st Ave. A streetcar running along 1^st Avenue is expected to reduce automobile needs (in concert with transit linkages), reduce automobile speed, create a quieter 'high street' than 2^nd Avenue, and provide an animated corridor accessible to the larger neighborhood.

Street designs also illustrate the teams' attention to sustainability and provide an example of the intentional multi-functionality of many design elements. In this case, streets are not only a means of access and circulation; they have a function as 'streams' and are part of both the aesthetic and the ecological infrastructure of the site. All streets were designed to collect and channel storm water to collection and treatment areas (paved streets direct water to swales and/or permeable parallel parking areas which are linked to lagoons). In addition, almost all streets are planted with trees or shrubs and are intended to have some degree of habitat value and, on internal residential streets, to create social spaces for community residents.

Building Design & Performance

Parcel Size. The teams' responses to block and parcel planning varied and not all teams had sufficient time to refine their proposals in this area. Nonetheless, the teams' responses suggest support for numerous parcels of a variety of sizes; they also reflect a desire to encourage a hierarchy of finer grain development, flexibility, diversity, and greater participation by different architects and by smaller builders and developers. Team 1 proposed subdividing into "several hundred parcels" with no parcel greater than 1 acre in size; large building complexes would consist of compositions of ownerships. Team 2 proposed a wide variety of sizes and types; their proposal currently shows 30 parcels but they are confident this can be increased and, with more time, would have further refined their proposal in this area. Team 3's proposal uses a traditional Vancouver city block (and perhaps somewhat smaller) as the basic building block with as many as 16-20 lots in a block⁽⁶⁾; they proposed a maximum limit of 4 lots as a contiguous parcel.

Building Heights and Energy Performance. Responses to height ranged from predominantly low rise across the whole site with max of 7-8 storeys (Team 3); to mostly low rise and accommodating two 12 storey hi-rises; to a greater and more varied height gradient (high to low, east to west) ranging from ~20-30 storey hi-rises in the east to 2 storey townhouses in the west (See Table 1). Although products varied in form and substance, each team attended to performance guidelines concerning deep-excavation constraints related to soil conditions (also evidenced in their parking treatments), views, maximizing solar gain, and to reducing shading of public and common spaces. All teams restricted structures requiring deeper excavation to areas of the site where the soil conditions were believed to be less problematic (based on available information). All teams also designed to ensure views through and over the site most notably to and from the north and south. The two teams that incorporated taller buildings in their plans (Team 1 & especially Team 2) were particularly attentive to siting structures to acquire solar gains and reduce shadow.⁽⁷⁾

Teams 2 and 3 explored energy issues in more detail. Team 2 estimates 50-60% of domestic hot water can be supplied by solar energy (from tops of mid-rise roofs and sides of tower SE to SW) as a result of their building orientation and design.⁽⁸⁾ Designed to accommodate incremental development, the plan also suggests using a cluster utility approach and establishing "utility districts." Depending on a combination of costs, regional power supply and demand, and on technological advancements, the team envisions incorporating such options as photo-voltaics and co-generation (for space heating, hot water, lighting, pumps, fans and electric cars) into later phases of development.

Team 3's design takes advantage of the prevailing winds (east and west) for natural ventilation and cooling; given solar load control with overhangs, fins and articulated elevations, very few suites are expected to require mechanical air-conditioning. While their N/S street and E/W suite plan provides such benefits, Team 3 recognized that it is not ideal for passive solar heating and cooling during equinox seasons⁽⁹⁾ and forces solar collection to roofs (where it may compete with roof gardens). They estimate that 25% of units (top floor) gain direct solar access and recommend that buildings be designed to maximize solar collection surface (roofs, walls, overhangs) and, as prices drop, to facilitate future use and incorporation of building-integrated photo-voltaics as costs drop. In addition, Team 3 proposes the use of ground source heat pumps for 2 and 3-storey buildings (the form facilitates GSHP efficiency) and their connection to an incrementally-built neighborhood heating system; as with Team 2, the team also favors a cluster utility approach. Finally, the team estimates that 25-40% of the energy consumption in their plan could be delivered by renewable energy generated on-site.⁽¹⁰⁾

Waste Management

The extent to which development can harvest water and use it efficiently and repeatedly is a cornerstone of sustainable design; water as a resource was definitely not taken for granted in the design teams' plans. Ideas suggested during the charrette included systems to capture greywater for reuse in irrigation and toilets (low-flush preferably); living machines to process waste water via bio-remediation instead of chemicals; and wetland areas tied into wastewater processing. The wetlands/lagoons are another illustration of a design element serving multiple functions: habitat creation, public amenity, irrigation storage (storm, grey & black water), and treatment.⁽¹¹⁾ Teams ways of dealing with household and green waste included source separation, wet garbage collection and composting on site (with the possibility of later incorporating wet garbage digesters), and the intention to reuse composted materials on site to remediate and nourish existing soils. Recycling centers were distributed throughout the site with a common recycling collection center, including toxic transfer center, located at the west end of the site and intended to serve the large neighborhood as well as the SEFC community itself.

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

What emerged from the charrette was impressive. Despite the challenges of time and task complexity, and variations in approach, each of the team's commitment to the guiding principles of sustainability was imparted in the designs. Differences in designs fulfill the charrette's goal of providing Council, staff, consultants and the larger community with various design options. Commonalities demonstrate a shared vision and emphasize critical elements of a sustainable community; predominant common themes are probably best captured by the following key ideas:

Incrementalism/Phased Development in order to provide opportunities for 'community' to evolve in more serendipitous and organic ways, take advantage of evolving technologies, reduce/distribute initial capital investments, and achieve some learning gains and further explore benefits and challenges of certain kinds of approaches proposed.



Flexibility, adaptability, particularly in the built form, to ensure that structures can be used or adapted, now or in the future, to serve different purposes (e.g., converting parking structures to workshops).



Ecological Infrastructure or Working Green to make visible, support, and work in concert with natural systems in providing and treating water, for energy, and for waste handling and treatment. (NB: also creates education and onsite job opportunities)



Multi-functionality to ensure that design elements serve multiple functions (e.g., street as stream; park and green space as habitat and part of ecological infrastructure; school as a community activity center)

1. Reports included: a detailed development study, Creekside Landing on Southeast False Creek (Stanley Kwok Consultants Inc.); a detailed study of sustainable development principles and practice, Vision, Tools and Targets (Sheltair Scientific Ltd.) from which City Staff prepared a summary document, Urban Sustainable Development: Southeast False Creek; and a policy document, Southeast False Creek Sustainable Neighbourhood: A Policy Statement to Guide Development prepared by City of Vancouver Planning Department in concert with the SEFC Policy Advisory Group.

2. Patrick Condon , Moriarty/Condon Ltd., took primary responsibility for preparing the Design Brief (as well as the 'cheat sheet'). Refer to Appendix C (supplementary) for copy of the Design Brief

3. Refer to Appendix C (supplementary)

4. Refer to Appendix C (supplementary)

5. The engineering 'team' included: Cynthia Mitchell, Design Team 1; Lee Hatcher, Design Team 2; Ian Theaker, Design Team 3; and three members of the Resource Team: Alan Grant, BC Hydro; Colin Kristiansen, City of Vancouver; and Peter Russell, CMHC.

6. For Team 3 a lot actually refers to a building parcel which is the smallest developmental parcel; there would be as many as 16-20 on a typical block (each building parcel could contain 4-8 units). They have 19 such blocks on the site in addition to 2 "Workplace" blocks (which are about twice the area) and 13 Mixed use (commercial/residential) blocks fronting 1st Ave.

7. It was noted, however, that further exploration and refinement would be required to ensure solar gains have been optimized.

8. Refer to the schematic in Team 2's summary report.

9. Ground floor suites still have at least 4 hours of direct sun and the plan allows dispersed solar quality and solar access at different times of the day.

10. Team 3 believes the 90% target for energy from renewable sources is currently 'uneconomic' "unless large-hydro is considered renewable (which [in their view] it is not)" italics mine.

11. For further information regarding storm water, greywater and blackwater plans, refer to Team summary reports: Calculations in Teams 1 & 2 reports; schematic in Team 2 report.