Urban Design Review B

Following the urban design review, Science World and PFS Studio refined the conceptual design of the TDET to better integrate it with the Science Park boundary. Members of Science World and PFS attended a second of the City’s Urban Design Panel Reviews on November 17,

87 For example: “Design development to clarify and enhance the experiential quality, view and openness of the exterior fence” (City of Vancouver, 2010c, p. 3).

2010. Responding to the tests showing a lack of clarification of the exterior edge, they presented a refined image of the TDET, articulated as a series of themes:

[PFS Landscape Architect] stated that a series of six themes have come out of discussion which include energy, transportation, water, food and agriculture, waste and housing. [Science World Director] stated that the focus of the park is on sustainability in the six themes as a way of helping people understand the implications of the choices they make. [PFS designer] described the overall plan and included a description of the six themes. (Development Board Permit, 2010, p. 7) Park.⁸⁸ As such, the larger themes

established the sequencing of TDET features and exhibits (Figure 51). This refined presentation was further described by a PFS member in the Panel Review: [PFS designer] “The criteria for the public edge is to engage the public and to display curated and evolving content.

The public edge will include the:

1. Arrival Plaza is to be a staging area for groups and will have some weather protection and public seating. 2. Solar Tower of Bauble will be an iconic solar powered Science World experience. 3.Cycle Corner will be a public interactive exhibit along the bike and pedestrian pathway 4. Water and Food Pockets will have a modular and interchangeable graphic panel, a rain gauge, urban garden and Pipe Wall and Cellular Wall 5. Demonstration Deck, will serve as a public invite into the Switch with a view of the exhibits in the Demonstration Area and will overlook

88 As described by BT: Thematically, [the KSSP and TDET] were meant to tie in. So, each of those experiences [of the TDET] was meant to mirror what we may do in more detail inside [the Science Park].

Figure 51: Sustainability themes are mirrored by interior Science Park exhibits along the TDET edge Source: Luc Bagnérès

the wetlands. 6. Waste Wall, will be constructed with re-used and recycled materials with modular and interchangeable graphic panels including a chalkboard and seating nook 7. Innovation Space, Unique Vancouver outdoor programmed space for sponsored programs, special events in addition to the current outreach and free admission opportunities 8. The C-Wall: will include a display illustrating impact of CO2 and climate change on sea levels and will be made of recycled concrete. (City of Vancouver, 2010c, Appendix I, p. 2).

What began as six “experiences” in May 2010 became seven in a “public environmental trail” in July 2010. In the urban design panel review of November 2010, eight experiences were announced, and the designation “Public Environmental Trail” was removed. The exhibits added were: (4) Water & Food Pockets, (6) a Waste Wall and (8) the C-Wall. Renderings done for the review were not found although the following illustration from 2011 (Figure 52) marking these refinements, may help the reader to visualize the scene.

Figure 52: Rendering by PFS Studio of the Science Park and its interface, the TDET, in 2011 Source: Talent Pun, 2020

The Solar Tower of Bauble remains similar in design to that from July 2010. Directly next to it is the Cycling corner which begins the sequence of the resulting Environmental Trail.

Key comments from the panel on the TDET stated:

• Several Panel Members acknowledge the applicant for the six themes and how they will engage the public and they particularly liked the bike counter.

• The Panel thought there was a balance of permeability and screening and liked that the pedestrian route had been separated from the bike route which had helped the edge experience.

• Most of the Panel was concerned with the dawdle path and thought it needed to be treated the same as the rest of the path. (City of Vancouver, 2010c, p. 8)

Indeed, the panel “supported the proposal and thought the applicant had come a long way in creating some excitement in the edge” (p. 8). It cited key aspects to improve: “Consider a strong element to pull all the themes together; Design development to the dawdle walk to enrich the connective elements” (p. 8). In response, “[a PFS member] noted that there will be a number of exhibits inside the Waste Wall including a large black board and a series of shelves. They would like to have a bigger expression [for the TDET] but there is also a concern regarding costs” (2010c, p.9). This response is a foreshadow of what was to come: the OSE project eventually went overbudget by three to four million dollars (Section 4.6). The Development Board Panel used the Urban Design Panel’s evaluation to inform their decisions. Interviewee 7 explains this process:

Interviewee 7: [Urban Design Panel members] were worried about fencing and planting and having more flexibility. So that may [have been] a case where [the City development planner] would have written the design conditions based on those recommendations.

As explained, the quality of the TDET was mandated in the development permit under conditions 1.1-1.5

For example, “Condition 1.1: design development to improve the qualitative experience for pedestrians and park users presented by the OSE’s secured edge in consultation with the Director of Planning, General Manager of Engineering and the General Manager of the Board of Parks and Recreation. Note to applicant:

careful attention to the OSE’s public/private programming including opportunities for interactive engagement and animation, the provision of greater permeability into the OSE and out to Creekside Park, and the provision of substantive quality in the execution of all visible aspects of the edge are required to ensure that the general public’s pedestrian experience is engaging, safe, and of high quality on a seasonal basis as landscape matures…”. (City of Vancouver, 2010c, p. 3)

With conditions such as these, the Development Permit Staff Committee added to their recommendations to the Development Board “a list of conditions that must also be met prior to issuance of the Development Permit”:

A.1: Standard conditions: Park Board (A.1.1-3), Landscape conditions (A.1.4-6), and Real Estate Services conditions. A.2: Engineering Conditions and A.3: License

& Inspections (Environmental Protection Branch) conditions; Standard Notes to Applicant (B.1) and Conditions of Development Permit (B.2). (City of Vancouver, 2010c, Appendix A, p.1-4)

Unlike those such as 1.1 above, these were standard conditions appended to the

development permit, required to be met,⁸⁹ emerging from reviews with other City departments.⁹⁰ One of these, the Park Board (VBPR), stated: “The proposal will interfere with existing

pathways, requiring a substantial reworking of an area of the park outside the OSE. Science World is obligated to do this work” (City of Vancouver, 2010c, p. 8). Unlike the simple mention of an OSE in Science World’s June 2010 development application, the Park Board now provided detailed conditions to be met (a list of public realm improvements) for OSE approval.