One of my favorite aspects of  Vancouver urban design is the way that buildings meet the street. This reminds me of classic urban neighbourhoods of New York and Philadelphia with their stoops or the humble porch of bungalows and cottages across California.

Great attention is paid to the interface between public and private realms. The tension and interaction is resolved through a variety of design patterns and features both in the vertical and horizontal plane. Individual unit access is located immediately from the footpath and private space is provided overlooking the street both from the steps and also from small porch-like terraces.

Here is an apartment building built in the 1990’s in the Downtown South neighbourhood next to the Roundhouse Community Centre. This is how people experience the street. This street, like most in the neighbourhood, take the famous Vancouver form of point and podium where the street level maintains a modest height and narrow towers extend to great heights (10 to 38 storeys) to achieve the desired neighbourhood densities while maintaining view corridors across the water.

eyesonthestreeteh
Street facing townhouses, Roundhouse Neighbourhood, 2-story podium, 9 and 17 story towers

The ultimate height and form of the the building is not as important as how the first several stories frame and address the street. Regular, closely spaced street trees and dwelling entrances reinforce the townhouse character of the street. Landscape amenity (for lack of a better word) is provided both along the public street but also within the private boundary creating a sense of a shared public realm.

A slight elevation change brings residents a degree of authority and ownership over the street and the steps reinforce the transition from public to private space. In conjunction with low fences and landscaping, this elevation change provides clear views of the street from the townhouses but restricts direct views into the living spaces.

Increasingly this podium and point form of Vancouverism is being updated in a more mid-rise form with more consistent but lower heights across the block. Below is a very similar street level response but the building takes a more consistent mid-rise scale (8 storey). This is a new residential building on East 7th Avenue. Conveniently a small brewery has opened up across the street adding to the half dozen others in the vicinity (talk about the benefits of intensification!).

New mid-rise apartments near Broadway and Main St, Vancouver, 8 storeys. Main Street Brewery left.

Street trees play a significant role in modulating the vertical space and creating a scale that is feels comfortable along the street. Like neighbourhoods in the West End and along 7th Avenue, these mature street trees create a very subdued, almost suburban feeling.

Recently I stumbled upon research on the subject of street facing units by Elizabeth Macdonald the urban scholar famous for her co-authorship of The Bouvelard Book with Allan Jacobs. The research, Street-facing Dwelling Units and Livability: The Impacts of Emerging Building Types in Vancouver’s New High Density Neighbourhoods documented the design guidelines that shaped these outcomes and made observations about street activity, sociability and value/desirability of street facing units.

It turns out the main rules governing the interface are quite simple. While they vary a bit across the city depending on the context, they have the following key components (source: Macdonald, 2005):

  • Individual entries for all ground floor dwelling units,
  • Terraces or gardens at ground floor dwelling unit entrance,
  • Individual dwelling units must be raised 1 meter above ground level,
  • Maximum and minimum setbacks along street frontages.

In some cases the guidelines require more detailed consideration including:

  • Articulation of building massing so that individual units are expressed in the building’s facade,
  • Specific design elements within the setback area (eg additional row of street trees as shown in images above).
guidelines
Example of guidelines for ground floor direct entry units. (Source: Street-facing Dwelling Units and Livability, Elizabeth MacDonald)

Macdonald’s research consisted of surveying both residents and people walking along along the street. She found that that the regular and close spacing of front doors, ranging from between 6 to 10 meters apart, contributes to the visual interest along the street-from their individualised terrace gardens and stairs that attract the attention of passers-by.

Both residents and people on the street felt that the direct entry units provided a sense of “eyes on the street’. Personalised gardens, windows, and regular entries give the impression that people care abour the transitional public-private space along the street. And 80% of the ground floor residents felt that they paid more attention to the street activities than their neighbours on the upper levels.

Macdonald also found that the ground-floor direct access units contribute to social interaction and street-oriented activity on the street. Most of the residents use the front door as their primary method of access, though this is diluted somewhat from the direct access provided from the parking structures located underneath most buildings.

This simple formula seems to have been adopted recently in Seattle as well (which is the inspiration for the post). Seattle is experiencing a massive building boom. By some accounts as many as 25,000 units have been developed over the span of two years most of which are in central locations. Below is a photo showing the ground floor interface of a new building in Capitol Hill on Broadway, I also saw a similar technique being used in the downtown Queen Anne neighbourhood.

a
New perimeter block building Capitial Hill Seattle (8 storeys)

I wonder if it is possible to build like this in Auckland? Can street trees of a form, scale, regularity ever be (re) introduced along a street? Are there places that haven’t seen so carved up and compromised by the roading network that we could recreate a traditional Street-Building-Block typology where people would want to live on the street? Will the Kiwi the obsession with indoor-outdoor flow ever include the street?

Share this

27 comments

  1. It’s a great way to live but, there are some key points to remember. a) Vancouver developments almost always include service lanes out the back. Nothing that can’t be done here but just need to keep it in mind. b) Traffic volumes and speeds,need to be lowered to reduce the effects of traffic noise. I would hate to live there facing the average Auckland street. And I live right next to a speed and volume limited road, in a terraced apartment.

    1. The service lanes do make a huge difference, but can also pretty horrible in the dense areas if not done well (all garbage pickup points/back+smelly ends of buildings)
      This is the back of mine: http://goo.gl/jL15ON

      There are some great examples in Yaletown/Roundhouse, this is one of the best I think – Bike Lane+Podiums+Park+Amenities: http://goo.gl/qm0SkK
      And the back is well done also: http://goo.gl/lT0PdM

      The high density stuff being built mostly does this, it’s nice. The West End (where I live) is lovely but there are some pretty awful designs and street interactions http://goo.gl/jlBXjl

  2. Kent – I love the use of brick in the examples you have shown. Visual warmth in a cold climate and to me more appealing than so many of Auckland’s boring concrete only structures. Subjective viewpoint I know, but they are a reflection of artisan endeavour and very aesthetically appealing.

  3. Insisting on steps would be a backwards move for all those who need level access, especially as our population ages and our current housing stock do not offer it enough.

    Regular direct frontage access sounds promising though.

    1. These street facing units represent a small fraction of the overall number of units. Most people access the buildings from common entrances and/or underground car parking. The researcher concluded that having raised units creates a degree of privacy and reduces the likelihood that the transitional space will be screened off, creating a less appealing and active street interface.

      1. Thanks for clarifying. That would be OK then. I can see how vertical separation would mark out the public/private boundary as in many older cities.

    2. English ‘architectural’ supplier Allgood offers the Sesame retractable step/platform lift system – which would add a reasonable cost to a new development but a horrendous one to any retrofit (if the underground shenanigans I saw on a recent TV clip are anything to go by).

      But there would always be that barrier……

  4. Considering the sort of people you see walking along Auckland streets, not sure I want my “indoor-outdoor flow” to include “the street.”

    Not a knock on these buildings, which are beautiful, but rather that I’d rather have as much distance between me and the regular street denizens as possible

      1. That indoor-outdoor flow looks great to me, but then that’s the beauty of choice – where its available.

        The alternative in most of NZ is of course a 5m grass set-back (often, no fence), not much less interactive with the regular street denizens, just largely unused by the occupants. A waste really.

    1. Where I come from these street people are known as “neighbours”, although I realise in many parts of Auckland neighbours are things that only drive in and out of adjacent carparks.

      1. I just handed a cooked ham steak to my neighbour across the path. And then walked up the path to borrow a Tivo remote. Said hi to the family having dinner on the porch next door and organised our garden to be watered while we’re away. All in a 25m radius. Terrace living is awesome.

  5. Why did the Auckland city council turn down such a development in Nelson street on the old council work shop land ? Corporate New Zealand is eyeing body corp fees making wage slaves of the inhabitants now lets compare corp fees in New Zealand and Vancouver .

    1. Could you expand on “Corporate New Zealand is eyeing body corp fees making wage slaves of the inhabitants now lets compare corp fees in New Zealand and Vancouver”?

      I’m privy to BCs in Auckland and Vancouver and they both operate the same way – maintaining/improving the building for it’s occupants and run by the unit owners. Where does ‘Corporate New Zealand’ come in?

    2. Is this guy Brendan just spamming links?

      Council didn’t turn it down at all, they approved it back in 2007. Unfortunately the scheme fell over in the financial crisis.

  6. I think the design is good and we could learn a lot even in our new Greenfield’s developments like Flat Bush. Small sections down to 350m2 but 2 storey with minimal gap between and garage out front. Stage 2 went to a grid road network which is fine but now you have 7.8m asphalt and approx 18m carriageway every 60m so you have a massive roading footprint instead of a rear service lane at least every other cross road. It is also been setup with a high end off-road cycle network which to be fair NZTA did approve $20m for with the transport package but didn’t give the budget to build it. At least all the arterial bridges have been setup for this but relying on parks or developers to build which they aren’t really from what I see. Flat Bush School Bridge built with fantastic off road cycle lanes then a developer allowed to put a culvert in 1m downstream and no cycleway allowance? A bit of a sidetrack.

    1. It only works if you have regulators actually prepared to enforce standards on developers, rather than our overly eager-to-please council. Wonder how that side of it worlked in these Vancouver/Seattle examples?

      1. I would love to meet these easy-to-please council staff! They must be somewhere other than in Auckland. The only time I’m observed the slightest element of cooperation/common sense is when representing a Requiring Authority at a pre-lodgement meeting or similar. It’s amazing how having to justify their demands focuses their minds, as suddenly the balance of power has shifted away from them, and if they persist they will have to prove their point in the Environment Court. Having said that, I’m always amenable to reasonable requests for minor tweaks (eg to planting or fencing), which is how the system should operate. But try to carry out a fully-complying activity as a private individual and see how many costly reports you need to produce…

        1. Comments on some points:
          Street noise: yes noise needs to be controlled to foster liveable neighbourhoods.

          Balance of housing types: If intensification is limited initially to traffic nodes and main thoroughfares this leaves more choice for those with growing families in the existing suburban housing stock. As empty nesters wish to downsize but remain in their neighbourhood, planning and design should provide for easy gradients for those of us waiting on joint replacements :). Easy safe access for wheel chairs, ebikes and mobility scooters needs attention.

          Fairness in application processing:
          There’s a problem that Council needs to address with more transparent processes around applications and approvals. Some applicants hire consultants who know how to achieve favorable non notified outcomes for developers. One hears a perception that moves towards speeding up application handling while allowing a high level of officer discretion could result in unfair practices and corruption. The answer could lie in removing officer discretion so that Unitary Plan rules mean what they say. Any variations should result in public notification.

          CLP: Council must allow local boards to deliver community-led planning as well as local board control over rogue developers.

        2. How do Local Boards deliver Community Led Planning? Is that not a contradiction in terms?

          Our Local Board are expert at side lining what the community wants

        3. Re; “How do Local Boards deliver Community Led Planning?”
          Not all local boards fail to consult with the community – some are better than others. In principle Auckland Council believes in community-led planning. But there are few signs of it as yet. Communities, residents associations and other grass-roots groups need to keep reminding them. The best examples of CLP are perhaps in Milford and Coatesville.

        4. I take your point that not all Local Boards are anti CLP. I cannot, however believe AC is in favour of it. Every single thing they’ve done (primarily the Auckland and Unitary Plans) are the complete opposite. AC seems to believe in nothing but “top down” planning.

          I was at a meeting during the early days of the Auckland/Unitary Plan with Linda(?) the guru from Vancouver… She said that AC was doing the whole thing backwards and they should’ve just asked communities what they wanted rather than foisting a bureaucrat plan on them.
          When that was mentioned at a further meeting she was forced to recant lest she lose her consultant status…

          AC has an allergy to CLP. Planners like to be in control, communities just get in the way.

        5. To be fair, is Auckland Transport not trying hard to get community-led input/planning with their consultation on proposals for roading changes? What seems to be needed is a process actively involving community groups rather than relying on general publication direct to the total community which often doesn’t get noticed. The Auckland and Unitary Plans, too, are going through several iterations of consultation but they go direct from Local Board to the public rather than involving community groups. Good Local Boards are trying to involve community groups but there needs to be an ongoing relationship of trust and transparency as well as a process involving community groups.

  7. Haven’t we already got an example of that working in Halsey St in Auckland? The smallish apartments right on the street by Studio Pacific about 5-10 years ago? They’re about 4 storeys high from memory, street facing, small planting zone, couple of steps up? Not sure if the street itself is planted though. But a good example to follow?

  8. Thank you. What you’re pointing out is an essential point, often overlooked. One of the first principles of urban design is to design a building to meet the pedestrian space at a pedestrian scale. The other is to make the building as transparent at the ground floor as possible, or at least avoid featureless walls. Books have been written about this, and community preference surveys indicate that people find these designs to be more attractive (as mentioned) than larger scale designs.

  9. Stonefields has a similar steps and podium front entrance in some of their 2 level terrace houses. Plus a vehicle entry at the rear.

  10. Seems from the pictures that the idea of the rules is to have windows that look out on the footpath and then the owners plant as much vegetation as possible so the occupants dont have to see the footpath.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *