Evolution of the Edge

Figure 40: Presentation of the Tower of Bauble in a prominent feature within a new plaza Source : Development Board Permit, May 2010 reprinted with permission by the City of Vancouver

Figure 40 shows the Entry Sequence and the Tower of Bauble. The entrance is clear and direct, typical of many “frontal” approaches (Ching, 1979). The large trapezoidal structure is designed to contain the existing Tower of Bauble exhibit, described initially in section 4.3. This serves as the “incident” (Cullen, 1961), placed to attract activity to the new public plaza. An initial design for the new physical canopy structure supports a solar-powered system meant to run the exhibit (City of Vancouver, 2010a). Experience (3) in the Overview (Figure 39), the Energy Station, iterates the sustainability theme: “Just North of the Tower of Bauble will be the Energy Station… A bike-themed exhibit will be offered free to the public, where they will have the opportunity to use bike-power to activate an exhibit or learn more about the efficiency of bikes in general” (City of Vancouver, 2010a, p. 9). Following this was to be (4) the Water Overlook (Figure 41) which subsequently gave rise to the concept of a wetland. The artificial wetland then facilitated a conceptual shift in the edge design. The barrier created by a marshland forms a natural edge. At the same time the water’s edge would create an interface between public and private; a porosity allowing for members of the public to “visually enter” the Ken Spencer Science Park:

NM: “[The Marshland] creates a barrier without being a barrier, so this notion of a deck on a marsh means that deck could now have a normal old guard rail.

We didn’t need to fence it because the marsh is now that separation.

Figure 41: The Wetland exhibit, in its initial conception as the ‘Public Overlook’ along the edge of the Science Park, the second of two emerging learning environment typologies

Source: Development Permit, 2010 reprinted with permission by the City of Vancouver

This natural barrier is an example of Cullen’s (1961) hazard. And this opened up other conceptual shifts in the design. The open sight lines into the Science Park led to the strategic placement of an outdoor stage:

Interviewee 4: The whole idea of making a wetland came from PFS. What if we broke up this fence line with a more natural barrier? That’s why we pitched the stage there, because there’s this opportunity to not only do outdoor demonstrations for the [fare-paying] visitors but also the public as well.

NM: The stage … had to do with the negotiations with the City and making this as publicly accessible as possible, although it’s a fare-paying zone so to speak.

So the decision was to put that stage in a manner so that if it faces the outside, and then this deck looks over the stage. There are speakers that basically amplify what’s happening on the stage, and you can actually follow what’s happening there.

This demonstrates how a series of conceptual shifts by PFS Studio brought design of the public and private interface to an acceptable response (Zeisel, 1984). A semi-public zone was initially conceived through the idea of a sliding gate creating a temporary fence. This led to another conceptual shift; the creation of a wetland provided a softer, lower boundary than would a fence. A final shift was made when the wetland boundary was seen to allow views of Science Park’s interior and its stage if properly positioned (Figure 42). Positioning was negotiated by the City and Science World so that

Cullen’s (1961) concept of hazard: “The railing, water, planting, and change of levels. All these hazards permit visual access whilst denying physical access” (p. 56). Another form of hazard is (5) Sustainability underground, an OSE feature never created, which imagined a large landscape mound. In addition to creating a boundary between fare-paying and public space, it had three functions:

It introduce[d] an area of green landscape to visually link two green spaces, provide[d] a sloping site for tiered seating for an informal amphitheater for science demonstrations, provide[d] an underground space of pipes and tunnels that children… [would] explore as they learn[ed] about sustainable choices....affecting the underground infrastructure of the city (City of Vancouver, 2010a, Appendix E, p. 12).

This system of underground tunnels could be peered into by members of the public. The exhibit was not deemed feasible for unknown reasons.

Figure 42: Image-present-test cycles with conceptual shifts bringing design closer to an acceptable response (green)

Source: Luc Bagnérès

To recapitulate, the boundary of the science park was reimagined as an interface that allowed the TDET to emerge. The creation of transitional zones, neither public nor private, point to Ford’s (2012) continuum. One was the Water Overlook, another, the Flex Zone. These kinds of semi-public zones, incorporating temporary fences that could open into public space, were being proposed to reconcile interests. The Flex zone would offer “experiences that change weekly to monthly” for both the public and visitors of Science World. While it was important to provide these flexible fences, the materiality of the fences was just as important.

The Facility Renewal Report proposed that the OSE implement three types of

barrier/fence: 2.4 m high fence, 3 m high Green-screen; and 2.4 m Opening-Fence (temporary fence). NM describes two factors in the variety of these fence types, key components in

“softening” the edge between public and private:

(a) The utter transparency of that edge, as transparent as you can get while being secure; an aperture to see inside. (b) Being completely open, with sliding gates, with the deck. You’re practically inside the park, that’s the kind of notion that we were bringing to the table. Let’s find a way of bringing people inside the park while they’re still on the outside.

In terms of transparency, an aperture is explained as an “opening” to a view that would expose the inside of the park to the public realm, hence the need for transparency in fence design. The sliding gates led to the conceptual shift of the wetland, allowing the public to have a view onto the science stage. Working with these qualities along the fence line became a way to find fitness between the form of the science park and Creekside park. At this point, in 2010, the TDET exhibits were being defined along the edge by PFS, but were not yet tied to Science World’s “Phase 1” exhibits on the Expo deck (Section 4.4). They were still being imagined as separate projects.