Books

Vancouver, Supermodel

A young city dresses up to make winners in the global economy swoon. Like what you see?

By Matthew Soules, 2 Jul 2010, TheTyee.ca

Cheng, Vancouver, architecture

Amenity landscapes. Photo: James Cheng.

Related

[Editor's note: This is excerpted from A Guidebook to Contemporary Architecture in Vancouver, just published by Douglas and McIntyre. A previous excerpt on Vancouver's architectural revival by Adele Weder ran last week.]

It's 8:00 a.m., the elevator door opens, and there he is -- just beyond the lobby's glass. Only yesterday I caught a glimpse of him when he was gliding between the towers, his reflection ricocheting across the countless window walls. Now he seems consumed with foraging the sub-surface depths of our building's roof-top pond. Strange when you think about it, at this moment many of my thousands of neighbors in this forest of condominiums are aligned with this bird, this Great Blue Heron -- connected by a common activity occurring in shared proximity; eating breakfast. By the time I get down to the seawall, the joggers are out in force. And the ocean, wow, it's so calm -- totally serene. Kayakers already! Doesn't anybody work? I've read that this part of the city is the second densest in North America. How can that be? It feels so spacious... so orderly. And the mountains, I can see them so easily. By the time I finish the short walk to my office it's practically impossible to suppress the feeling that this place, this city, just might be utopia.

Utopia!? How is this feeling possible? We all know that utopia can't exist. But the sentiment persists and proliferates. In recent years city-makers from Dubai to Dallas have come to view Vancouver as an urban paradise and now seek to more or less imitate it. During the time-span covered by this guidebook Vancouver has emerged as an unlikely archetype, a place that cities everywhere look to as the prime example of the 'Livable City.' Vancouver is a supermodel.

Much of the city's utopian character derives from its spectacular location. Where else does such a relatively large and dynamic metropolitan condition exist in immediate proximity to beaches, rainforests and snow-capped peaks? Where else can we witness high-density urbanism co-existing with such vibrant and healthy natural ecologies? Deer filled forests sit right at the city's edge. Waters within the metropolis teem with millions of migrating salmon. But it's not the city's fortuitous siting alone that has garnered so much attention. Architecture, urban design and planning have capitalized on the city's natural assets to produce an exceptional built environment that has secured its supermodel status.

Part of Vancouver's anomaly arises from the fact that it is dizzyingly new. If you're going to build utopia, you need the opportunity. Within the period of this guidebook the city's population has ballooned by more than 67 per cent. Since 1995, more than 150 high-rise residential towers have been built in the downtown peninsula in what constitutes a radical and wholesale transformation of central Vancouver.

Vancouver architecture, 1

Concord Pacific Place on False Creek. Photo: Lori Liessling & Pax-Lyle.

A bulk of these towers are located in two master-planned communities, Concord Pacific Place on the north shore of False Creek and Coal Harbour to the west of the Central Business District, and together they cover an astounding one-sixth of the downtown peninsula. Few cities in recent decades have been so significantly and directly determined by master-planned urban design. These two neighbourhoods, along with areas of the city they have inspired, have come to define Vancouver as the apotheosis of contemporary urban livability. Glassy, slender, and well- spaced podium towers maximize views and light while enlivening the sidewalk. The public seawall and a generous amount of parks and civic amenities offer recreation, leisure, and community-life all within easy walking distance. It is a safe, clean, calm, and highly designed form of urbanism. It also registers the logics and modes of globalization.

At the dawn of the 21st century there is no such thing as a non-global city. Globalization has impacted everywhere... even Antarctica. Nevertheless, the degree to which the heightened liquidity in people, goods, and money has informed supermodel Vancouver is remarkable for its legibility. The population explosion that has fuelled Vancouver's makeover has been determined to a large degree by remote geopolitical events and international migration -- the city was, for instance, a primary destination for the pre-1997 exodus from Hong Kong.

The speed and scale of Vancouver's development entails construction financing made possible through the workings of global capital -- Concord Pacific Place, for example, was built with money from Asia. A not insignificant number of condominium units are purchased by foreign investors, and many condominium towers have been primarily marketed in foreign cities. In these ways, the thicket of towers that represents supermodel Vancouver is the iconic and palpable result of globalization.

More significant, however, is that the very concept of 'livability' for which new Vancouver is famed is itself a manifestation of globalization's dominant worldview. As an ideological condition that is founded upon liberalism and capitalism, globalization prefaces a lifestyle urbanism that is shaped by the preoccupations of the influence-wielding upper middle class. Situated within this ideological context Vancouver's livability translates into an urbanism that elevates fitness, leisure, and comfort as the ultimate barometers of city life. This value system synthesizes perfectly with Vancouver's natural setting. Activities such as jogging on the seawall or sipping a cappuccino while taking in a natural vista emerge as ideal urban behaviour. Architecture and urban design that facilitate this experiential symbiosis between lifestyle and nature not only belong to the condominium mega-developments -- the contours of this livability can be traced to buildings throughout the city.

Vancouver architecture, 2

Concord Pacific. Photo Matthew Soules.

While glass and transparency are a common preoccupation of contemporary architecture almost everywhere, their role is more deeply entrenched in Vancouver. This phenomenon results from the combined impact of the natural landscape and livability on the Vancouver psyche and allows Vancouver architecture to achieve multiple effects. Of course, it facilitates the view. Building types that are usually hermetic become open. The Olympic Speed Skating Oval with its vast north facing glazing opens up to the North Shore Mountains that rise in the distance. The Vancouver Convention Centre's West Building exposes its circulation and break-out spaces to the harbour.

But the provision of views is only the most obvious implication of glass. At a more fundamental and pervasive level the prominent role of glass serves to diminish the schism between the interior and exterior. If the interior is the primary domain of architecture, it belongs to the artificial world, while the exterior, in the broadest sense, belongs to nature. Glazing merges these domains by minimizing their threshold of separation. The relative immateriality of glass also allows architecture to flirt with non-materiality, and ultimately, non-existence. This signals perhaps a latent desire within much of Vancouver's buildings. That is, to not be there at all -- to allow the landscape to remain as intact and pure as possible.

If glass facilitates a certain synthesis of natural and artificial, Vancouver architecture also privileges wood in what can be described as a material semiotics of the natural. A large number of Vancouver buildings feature manufactured wood products. These products play a double role: signifying the forests surrounding the city and indicating increasingly 'sustainable' building construction. Their reconstitution of small wood pieces into larger components both realizes and communicates the increased material efficiency and therefore sustainability of our modes of production. The fact that these components are often deployed in a visually demonstrative and almost ornamental manner reveals the importance of their expressive content in imbuing a building with an emotionally satisfying sustainable naturalism.

Vancouver architecture, 4

Richmond Oval. Photo: Hubert Kang.

Sustainability is the latest variation on nature in the livable city and is fully integrated with supermodel Vancouver. The round of mega-projects that follow Concord Pacific Place and Coal Harbour inflate this aspect of design to a new prominence and scale. This involves incorporating artificially constructed ecological systems directly into buildings and urban space. The Vancouver Convention Centre's green roof and 'bio-engineered' marine habitat are massive ecological investments. The master-planned community at South East False Creek deploys an array of sustainability techniques among its roughly 8,000 units, including the construction of 'Habitat Island' -- an artificial island meant to replace lost shoreline while achieving a net increase to inter-tidal fish habitat that supports heightened biodiversity.

The leisure oriented nature of the livable city as represented by structures like Coal Harbour's seawall is now expanded to include the non-human residents of the city; residents such as the Great Blue Heron that frequents my condominium tower. Ecological livability is thus the defining double adjective of utopian, supermodel Vancouver.

Vancouver architecture, 5

Southeast False Creek Habitat Island. Photo: Peter Jones.

At the same time that Vancouver is regularly rated as one of world's most livable cities it is also the most murderous large city in Canada, is prohibitively expensive, and the Downtown Eastside includes the most impoverished postal code in the country along with what is reported to be the highest HIV infection rate in the developed world. These are -- no doubt -- big and serious problems that no urban paradise can claim. But are even the city's utopian aspects so wonderful? Part of the answer is clearly affirmative. That I and thousands of others can live and work in high-density neighborhoods that are defined by light, openness, safety, quiet, and recreational abundance and in which neighborliness extends to wildlife is anathema to the harsh reality of dense settlement for much of human history. But nothing comes without costs and it's interesting to consider just what those costs might be.

To advance this consideration it's useful to think of Vancouver in relation to another even more influential west coast supermodel of utopian urbanism: Disneyland. The livable city and Disneyland have numerous similarities. As the American architect and critic Michael Sorkin reminds us: "Disneyland favors pedestrianism and 'public' transport. It is physically delimited. It is designed to the last detail. It is segmented in 'neighborhoods.'... Its pleasures are all G-rated. It's safe." If Disneyland was built today it would undoubtedly be a model of the most advanced sustainable and ecological design.

It's easy to criticize the simulation of the good life that a place like Disneyland represents. Its superficiality and lack of authenticity are obvious. But its example is a useful reminder of the risks inherent in building utopia. Paramount of which, I would argue, are those related to control. Disneyland promises clean safe fun but does so as Sorkin says by offering a "city-like construct that radically circumscribes choice, that heavily polices behavior, that understands subjectivity entirely in terms of consumption and spectatorship, and that sees architecture and space as a territory of fixed and inflexible meanings." It is tempting to see amongst the advantages to utopian Vancouver a resonance with Disneyland's overarching authority that threatens to constrain the expansive and liberating possibilities of the city.

Vancouver architecture, 6

Convention Centre. Photo: Bob Matheson.

So ask yourself as you explore Vancouver and its architecture: In what ways has the city succeeded in building a benevolent utopia and in what ways has it built its inverse; an attractive and comfortable but ultimately dissatisfying dystopia?

Whatever the answer, it is clear that Vancouver's architecture and urbanism is unique. As a relatively young city that at the outset of the 21st century is still inventing itself, it is exciting to witness so clearly in Vancouver the defining hopes, preoccupations and struggles to realize the best possible city of the future.

More than many other places in the world, Vancouver succinctly manifests this contemporary quest for a new type of city. As an open-ended search it requires both success and failure, but it is the trajectory of the search itself that makes Vancouver such a relevant and fascinating place.  [Tyee]

17  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • asp

    1 year ago

    shallow

    It will be interesting to see if these areas develop any soul, right now they feel limited to a narrow slice of socio-economic pie.

  • Ramona777

    1 year ago

    Supermodels are Shallow, Self-Absorbed, High-Maintenance Bimbos

    Hey, that kind of describes Vancouver.
    A city once known for its neon lights has razed old buildings and consumed vast amounts of materials to create a place for rich people to frolic.
    In an ego-driven quest to be a world-class city, remember, that it's rather meaningless given the much more serious things going on.
    Glass towers and atriums mean nothing to an orphan in Haiti or a child soldier in Sudan.
    Think of what could have been built elsewhere.

  • Donny Lemur

    1 year ago

    On one side of the coin

    On one side of the coin Vancouver has been very good economically to me but I have had to sacrifice art, culture, conversation and meaning to live in this hell hole. A shallow, empty city that I was hoping to fall in love with but it was not to be.

    I shall be moving in four months and can honestly say that Vancouver has no redeeming qualities beyond its geographical location. I shall not miss you,

  • snert

    1 year ago

    I agree with asp

    No soul especially on a gloomy wet day.

  • Urbanismo

    1 year ago

    Supermodel? Yeah but don't

    Supermodel? Yeah but don't look under her petty-coat . . .

    http://members.shaw.ca/urbanismo/thu.future/vancouver.failed.html

  • doggone

    1 year ago

    Coming in from Inshaun

    Or London the other day (at least two years ago) we look out to port and there are snow capped mountains. To Starboard there is the Salish Sea and our Gulf Islands. This town is pretty and I lived there for some years. Last time I drove there was a panic to get to a funereal and my "clutch" leg cramped up in the traffic. Last summer we did a wedding in the biggest tower off Denman and the view was spectacular.
    IMO: Those places should be available to the folks that like them.
    I won't be competing in the bidding.

  • brg61

    1 year ago

    Glass is celebrated...

    ...by the author for it's esthetic value which can mitigate the degree new architecture dominates our sea and landscapes.
    To some extent this does work, but it has a downside.
    Glass is cold and sterile---words freqently used by long time city dwellers when assessing our "master-planned" new centres.

  • Moat

    1 year ago

    More than the Core

    I don't think we need to be so harsh on the city at the moment. The architects are trying to build something of note, yet we fight over view corridors and ultimately sacrifice the potential for the construction of a building that could be admired for years. Why else are some neighborhoods stuck with the three level apartments built in the 60s, and 70s? Give me a custom designed glass tower any day than low rise temporary junk. At least some thought would be given to the site.

    Secondly, the way some commentators are suggesting that only the rich can "frolic" and live in Vancouver is perplexing, and unrealistic. I could sell my house in the suburbs and live quite well downtown - if I chose to. But I would have to give up my yard, my two cars, and my big box stores. I would also have to clean out my closets and garage because I own to much crap. Oh, wait, all the unsustainable stuff and habits.

    Besides, if the rich choose to live in glass towers downtown, so be it. I would rather have them live there than continue to cut into the mountains on the North Shore and Coquitlam. So, what do you want, large estates, or luxury apartments? Which ultimately has more impact in a negative sense.

    That being said, I do appreciate the link from urbanismo. We have have our core and eat it too if we create mini-centers outside the core.

    Many commentators need to get their focus away from the downtown core. Start looking at the "middle class" neighborhoods outside of the core. Notice how many driveways are paved over? Notice the trees that have been cut down in favor of lawns? Notice the dwarf species of trees that have replaced the large ones so that the sidewalks are not damaged by roots?

    We should be worried about the amount of green in the city, and not concern ourselves with the amount of glass. Glass can be recycled.

    Good article. Keep 'em coming.

  • zalm

    1 year ago

    Dystopia

    Perfect word.

    Moat sez:"I don't think we need to be so harsh on the city at the moment. The architects are trying to build something of note, yet we fight over view corridors and ultimately sacrifice the potential for the construction of a building that could be admired for years."

    Perfectly said. And exactly why it will never happen. What building can you think of, except for the Sun Tower and Marine Building, that has stood longer than a couple of generations? Every one of them has been trashed by later generations of "architects" (term used overly loosely, and with scornful laughter) as they either demolish it to build something else newer, or totally remake the shell with new materials, destroying the simplicity and harmony of the design with its older materials.

    Honestly, how can stucco compete with Denman Island sandstone? Yet that's what the "rebuilders" of the Georgia Medical Dental building did, and further, claimed to have "sensitively referred to the original structure in their design."

    Bah. Bah with more scorn than the printed page can convey.

    How about Erickson's brutalist Mac-Blo headquarters? There's no way to change the waffle-iron except to paint it, and not even our planners have gone that far, but subsequent owners and architects have totally ruined the interior lobby, probably the most delicate and sensitive of lobbies in all of downtown including the Orpheum. And they had the audacity to do that long before Erickson died!

    Somebody ought to be hanging their heads in shame. And for all who never walked in there, you have no idea at all what you missed, because it isn't there any more.

    No, this city disrespects its architecture intensely, and anyone who feels that glass, framing a view of the mountains or "bringing the outdoors inside" will substitute, simply doesn't get the purpose of architecture. Or art. And maybe even life. That's just cheap engineering.

  • zalm

    1 year ago

    Further

    "Why else are some neighborhoods stuck with the three level apartments built in the 60s, and 70s? Give me a custom designed glass tower any day than low rise temporary junk."

    Real estate in Vancouver became an "investment" in 1892 when Rudyard Kipling bought three lots here on spec because everyone else was, and from then on, nothing never changed. Elsewhere, it was a place to live and make a home. That's the critical difference.

    Just so you know, the "highest and best use" of land in Vancouver currently is the 3-storey walk-up. Has been since WWII, and even a little bit before. That's the most efficient housing possible for the least resources, as conveyed by planners, architects, builders and realtors. That's not me that says so, that's the aforementioned scoundrels. The sky-high tower is a phenomenal waste of resources, and difficult to purchase, finance, construct, build, sell, maintain and service.

    Guess what's the highest and best use of the land as far as realtors (read investors, who also happen to be homeowners) are concerned? You're right - single family housing.

    It's sad isn't it - we can't do the right thing because greed gets in the way.

    How would you change it? Besides wishing it weren't so? Replicate it at other centres?

  • Fiat lux

    1 year ago

    We went to live in Vancouver

    We went to live in Vancouver in 1955 and it was a very pleasant place for another 20 years, but by the mid 70s is was becoming a pathetic, human sardine can and we could hardly wait to get out.

    My wife hasn't been back for 31`years and I for 22, when I had to go to deliver something I made.

    Never want to see that glass covered human dump again. Or any other of these pathetic human zoos, anywhere on Earth.

    Humans have not been "created" or "evolved" to live in glass cages.

    The most dangerous people on Earth today are so called economists, and architects, filling and destroying life with hopelessness and ugliness.

    Ed Deak.

  • zalm

    1 year ago

    Oh, Ed...

    It's got some nice parts in it. It's kind of like Disneyland in some ways - great for escaping the humdrum life we all live, intoa make-believe world where there's no poverty or hunger or war or destitution.

    But it's a totally impractical aid for solving any of the most important problems in our lives, like seeking and finding meaning, helping your neighbours, making a better world, and ultimately walking lightly on the earth. This city can't help us do a single bit of that - it's not built for it.

    But it sure feeds our narcissism pleasantly enough....

  • freebear

    1 year ago

    Unsustainable super model!

    We all know a model's 'looks' don't last!

  • The Modern

    1 year ago

    Bitterness!

    Donny Lemur: You must be from Edmonton.

  • T Fricker

    1 year ago

    Mirror, Mirror on the wall...

    Over the last decade these sorts of pieces have become completely formulaic. Breathless observer extols the beauty and design, the natural setting, makes a few references to problems outside the core, then goes on pretending all that is relevant is what goes on in the peninsula and around False Creek. It has reached the point where all these architects, realtors, city hall officials and 'prominent residents' should just draw a line around False Creek and Downtown and rename it 'Narcissus'.

  • Moat

    1 year ago

    Really, that bad? Compared to what?

    zalm, ed deak...

    We're in a situation where compromise has to be made. Unfortunately, these compromises led to the odd look of the Wall Centre.

    zalm, you're right. Vancouver trashes architectural history. I am not sure of any city in North America that is better for unintentionally destroying it's sense of historical place. Maybe Los Angeles.

    Ed, I agree with you that living like sardines in glass packaging is not really going to create a happy, healthy society. But at the same time, people are going to need somewhere to live. Spreading people around the hinterland destroys farmland and shorelines.

    Besides Ed, I have been to your area of central BC many times. Logging roads and clearcuts have created an industrial patchwork where ecosystems endure, rather than thrive. One has to go to the far north to escape this industrial scene. I will take Vancouver over Vanderhoof anyday.

    But zalm, you ask how I would change things. If the Lower Mainland was my own SimCity, I would attempt to engineer nature into the cityscape. Towering buildings, combined with towering trees. True greenspace, not lawns, would be created, and streams would be revived. The tree canopy would actively be returned. Maybe even create tree farms on freeway medians. Superstores and Canadian Tires would be stacked, rather than located beside one another. The rooftops of these buildings would be put to use. Parking space would be vertical, not sprawling. Backalleys would be converted to pubic space for uses such as gardens and bikeways. Industrial parks would have more rail connections, for both workers and for the movement of goods. Public buildings such as schools, hospitals,and court services would be spared little construction expense, as the idea would be that they would be in use 200 years later. Non-market housing is tricky, maybe social housing could be located in desirable areas, but I am still thinking of a fair and equitable way to provide it. People would want to give up the automobile, not forced to do so through frustration. There would be a civic board where members would have to have spent some time learning classical architecture and art. Members could be citizens from other countries to promote an international feeling.... but not for the purposes of corporate globalization. Public space and buildings would be key, and there would be public participation in the maintenance of these buildings. The agricultural land reserve would be respected. Not easy stuff. And my suggestions may not work.

    To suggest that Vancouver is a miserable, vapid place is bizarre. Where is the model city then, that Vancouver should aspire to be? Does it exist in North America?

    If the "rich" want to live in glass towers, let them - don't throw stones. Or do you want them to have sprawling estates, or live in gated communities? People living together from all income levels is the best scenario. Even if it is a coexistence rather than a community.

  • max von smartt

    1 year ago

    vancouver self centred

    meanwhile out in the burbs where working stiffs and families can afford to live, the housing and shopping centres could be anywhere, generic amerika. it is the geography which makes the city stand out, not the bricks and glass.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.