![\"\"](\"http:\/\/spacingmedia.com\/spacingvancouver\/wp-content\/uploads\/features\/indepth_feature-VAN.gif\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Inserting new structures into older urban environments can be tricky. The rhythm of the street and its storefronts, sidewalk width, building height etc. all play a role in the success of any new building. But then, despite the best of intentions from the planners, it fails at a certain level.<\/p>\n
The Keefer Block\u00a0at the corner of Main and Keefer, shown above, is a good case in point. The building has been designed to acknowledge its location\u00a0with a lighter coloured brick element to turn the corner, topped with a large lantern and a corner entrance for the retail. Nice.<\/p>\n
And then the retail client ignores it.\u00a0Here, Starbucks blocks\u00a0the corner entrance with tables and chairs \u2013 a small sign says \u2018use other entrance\u2019 \u2013 and a further storefront is taken over\u00a0for storage and back of house uses.<\/p>\n
Advertising for the Keefer Block featured all of the interesting retail in the surrounding neighbourhood and I\u2019m sure, in the planner\u2019s eyes, there were visions of interesting small-scale retail reinforcing the existing pattern of the street, but instead we got an\u00a0essentially dead chunk of sidewalk\u2014though through no fault of their own, the coffee company can\u2019t put seats on the sidewalk.<\/p>\n This is where the concern lies as we see development in an area as sensitive as Chinatown: vision and reality end up being two very different things.<\/p>\n On the Keefer side of the building, more dead space is created because all of the envisioned retail space is eaten up by a generic restaurant which only opens late in the day. To top it off, the new neon sign for the restaurant is virtually unreadable from the sidewalk, due to its placement\u2014let alone the lousy typography.<\/p>\n The project promoted itself as \u201ctaking inspiration from the vibrant Chinatown neighbourhood [with] contemporary amenities, mixed-use retail and services at street-level\u2026<\/em>\u201d Cool.<\/p>\n Illustrations of the proposed building showed active storefronts and a lively signage program. In reality, we got a street-killing bank branch that eats up most of the retail units on the Main and Keefer corner. And much the same thing will happen with the Bosa development, to the south of the Westbank project.<\/p>\n The debate over 105 Keefer<\/a> at the bottom the street is interesting and very important. The height is a concern given the surrounding neighbourhood and proximity to the Chinese Classical Garden and there is the question of what amenities the development will return to Chinatown. Most important is how this building will relate to the surrounding neighbourhood, and like its Main Street counterparts it’s going to be the details that matter.<\/p>\n The developer is worried and has pulled out the stops.\u00a0The proposed building is surprisingly detailed for a project only going through its first hurdle, a rezoning<\/a>. Previous versions of the proposal got a bit silly when the drawings showed that the colour scheme was\u00a0inspired by a Chinese film. Really?<\/p>\n Unfortunately, the architects have decided to go all out on the Chinatown character by \u201cborrowing with both hands\u201d as a design professor once observed, elements from the historic heart of the district. But what the developer and architects don\u2019t understand is, if you are going to develop in Chinatown, understand the neighbourhood and get under its skin, don\u2019t just slap on some character.<\/p>\n The revised building, according to the developer in the Vancouver Sun, has the \u201clook and feel, the materiality, the detailing is much more sensitive to Chinatown [and] the retail\u2019s been rejigged. It\u2019s all 25-foot increments, and it\u2019s conducive to what\u2019s found elsewhere in Chinatown.\u201d<\/p>\n The first problem, however, is how those 25-foot increments are going to be ensured when the next bank, generic restaurant or other large retail use comes calling. As we\u2019ve seen, the design intent and reality are not the same.<\/p>\n And then there\u2019s the character question.<\/p>\n The architect chimes in with the project\u2019s \u201cenhanced Chinatown character.\u00a0We\u2019ve put part of our building adjacent to the (1909) Chinese Benevolent Society building, and compared items.\u00a0You can see (we have similar) recessed balconies, the 25-foot bay modules, the brick differentiation. You can see the pattern on the balcony guardrails, and the patterning on the window mullions behind.\u00a0You can see the colour in the recesses of the balconies. You can see the parapets that extend above the principal parapet in front. The cornice line, you can see the two-storey expression at the ground floor with the retail. All of those things are directly informed by the Chinatown character.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n But what we\u2019ve ended up with is a pastiche of bits of Chinatown\u2019s unique society buildings pasted onto a condominium, without understanding the origins and purpose of what those buildings represent. Chinatown\u2019s character is not the recessed balcony, despite the City\u2019s own design guidelines for the neighbourhood. It is the cumulative affect of a wide range of architectural styles, eras of development from the early 1900s to the 1970s, and shops and services. There are only a handful of balconied buildings in the neighbourhood and every one of them was built for a Chinese society. No other building in Chinatown had a balcony.<\/p>\n The style originates in Guangdong province as a house form, it was adapted by various colonial powers, notably the British, as office and commercial buildings and brought here as an expression of both the home away from home and an investment for the society members.<\/p>\n The balcony represents the most important part of the building and, in the early buildings on Pender Street, there was just one balcony, which recalled the ancestor halls found in the clan areas back home. As later buildings had more uses, additional balconies were created. The combined Wong\u2019s Benevolent Society building on Pender had a school on the first floor and the assembly hall on the top floor, similarly the Chinese Benevolent Association (CBA) had the Chinese hospital on the first floor, the CBA\u2019s assembly hall on the second floor and a national organization on the top.<\/p>\n A few of the buildings were adapted from earlier structures and had the assembly hall added on top of the original building.<\/p>\n The society buildings have an impact far greater than their numbers, simply because of their rarity. Borrowing the form without function and using it as a style choice takes something essential away from the original. The society buildings need to be highlighted and stand alone for their uniqueness and not be lost in a sea of cheap knock offs.<\/p>\n 105 Keefer is proposed for a site that was home to a Chinese theatre, a timber yard, wharves and the Vancouver Gas Company on the edge of False Creek. The building should draw on the past uses of the site, its unique siting and be the best possible development in Chinatown, not just another vague, awkwardly contextual building that offers no real value to the community. As UBC professor Henry Yu says\u00a0\u201cYou can do amazing things with that site. It\u2019s not being done with this.\u201d<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n See – http:\/\/topofmydesk.com\/2014\/12\/24\/oh-just-a-little-bit-of-change<\/a><\/p>\n Original Vancouver Sun story here – http:\/\/www.vancouversun.com\/business\/controversial+chinatown+proposal+rejigged\/11438334\/story.html#ixzz3waB0hOQr<\/a><\/p>\n **<\/p>\n John Atkin<\/strong> is a civic historian and author who organizes and conduct tours for groups and individuals. John has explored Vancouver like few others have and offers an interesting and offbeat insight to the city\u2019s architecture, history and neighbourhoods. He has created, and conducts, a number of unique and popular walking tours throughout the City of Vancouver. You can visit his website<\/a> to his tour schedule.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![\"Atkin_KeeferGoogle_600\"](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/vancouver\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2016\/02\/Atkin_KeeferGoogle_600.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>But this is not restricted to just one building. Across the street, Westbank\u2019s 188 Keefer St.<\/a> project\u00a0suffers from the same problem.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>Development happens. But for historic areas, or even just the interesting and odd places\u00a0we have, throw out the rule book,\u00a0 find a way for the quirky\u00a0to survive and provide space for future quirkiness.<\/p>\n