Creative Mornings Vancouver

Q: Given that the client (providing funds) is often different than the end user (for instance a school, library, community center, park, public space … ), how does one make a convincing argument for a design which includes not only their desired program, but other programmatic elements needed by the community?

DC: It has been my experience that, for the most part, the decision makers involved in public sector (such as schools, libraries, community centres, etc…) are in their fields because they believe in the social service role of these organizations. I find that it is easy to get buy in for these other types of project intentions once we have explained the potential and importance of design in achieving these ends.

Q: How can the designer try to ensure an active public space, not just a single destination? Does it require an engaged and willing client? Does an Architect have a duty of care toward the general public good? (… and should public money sometimes be able to enhance private building budget, if the public will be better served as a result? Vice versa?) As a corollary question: should the architect also become the developer? Would doing so help the public good and would the architect’s code of ethics improve the built result, or would the architect be forced to adapt to the cheapest common denominator?

DC: There are many design strategies that we utilize to help create active public spaces. Increasingly, we are beyond architectural thinking to help develop strategies. We are finding many great ideas from urban planning theory that have direct application be shifting them in scale from the outdoor public realm to the indoor public realm. As well, we are looking more and more to the social sciences for inspiration.

Q: The Norwegian viewpoints present a wonderful opportunity for young designers to get exposure, but they were the result of a top-down government program, and a societal climate which values public space for public good, not public space simply by private ‘favour’. Movements which do exist here seem to occupy the ‘bottom-up’ position (pun intended), how can the two be bridged?

DC: I’m not sure that I agree with the general premise of top down versus bottom up, however the question does highlight a very significant obstacle for us in North America. Norway, as if more typical in Europe, has a very ingrained design culture. There is much wider understanding in the general public about the value of design. As well, given a much longer history, decision making (both individual and institutional) seems to have a much longer term focus. As a result the investments made in the public realm generally are of a higher quality and built with more lasting materials. Too much of what we build is thought of as disposable.

Q: Adding new housing to the city cannot make the city more affordable without also lowering existing housing prices unless there are programs in place which separate the costs of new buildings, new owners, young owners, etc … how would you suggest adding density to the city to make room for the demand? What can an architect design to address the issue beyond increasingly smaller properties? How can architecture be taken away from being simply a per-square-foot commodity?

DC: I disagree with the comment that adding new housing cannot make the housing more affordable. The key is the type of housing that is provided. With few exceptions, housing pricing will be set using the economic forces of supply and demand, with tempered by policy. Until we recognize that the fundamental full cost of our housing typologies (including land value, infrastructure, loss of agricultural land, etc…) is in itself not sustainable we are only prolonging the challenge. We must find ways to accept that the manner in which we have come to build the vast majority of our communities over the past 50 years needs to change. We need more walkable compact communities with smaller homes in good proximity to transit. The challenge in a city like Vancouver is different than that in suburbs such as Maple Ridge. In this area, urban planners will have the greatest impact. We need to support their efforts. I agree with the introduction of lane housing, subdivision and the gradual intensification of existing neighbourhoods.

Q: Does the city/government itself need to become a developer? (thereby skipping a developer’s profit margin) Should city land be used as building space or should zoning itself be changed to allow further growth? How can an area which is ‘filled’ (most of Kits, for example) accept new density other than laneway housing (which can never add much density, given current footprint limitations), without also going through the unsustainable step of destroying existing buildings for the sake of bigger ones? Is there a way to create buildings in parallel to existing ones?

DC: I think that zoning is the key tool that cities have to address these types of issues. There will always be special situations where a city may want to take a more active role but in order to have wide spread positive change it needs to be embraced by the private sector developments. This will come through good planning policy and zoning that supports positive change.

Q: Are alleyways necessarily dead spaces in Vancouver, or should we start considering them to be just as much the ‘front’ of a building as the street? There seems to be so much space devoted simply to waste, and therefore aesthetically ignored.

DC: I strongly support the city of Vancouver’s laneway housing initiatives. I think that we need to see more of this type of infill housing. With this comes a tremendous opportunity to re-imagine the nature of the lanes.

Q: The following are all essentially different aspects of the same question, how can young architects survive the current building climate? (they don’t necessarily relate to the content of the talk, more the nature of most of those in attendance, being mostly young designers.) The AIBC, just like all architecture professional bodies, exists mainly to serve its existing members, not necessarily to cultivate new ones (and therefore increase competition), should there be local young architecture prizes and projects so that young designers can get a foothold? What role do architects in general play in ‘helping their own’ in absence of a real union of architects? Unlike many other areas of design, a good looking portfolio cannot be created without actual work experience, but that experience is difficult to attain without a portfolio which demonstrates a-priori ability, how can the profession encourage its members to embrace growth and foster experience in young designers?

DC: The AIBC’s role is to regulate the profession of Architecture and to protect the public interest. I understand the frustration felt by many Intern-Architects with the process of obtaining their registration. However, I disagree with your suggestion that the institute is motivated to keep new Architects out. Having said this I agree that the system could be made simpler and still achieve the desired result.

The AIBC does have an award program for “emerging” Architects and certainly more of this type of support would help. I agree that it is difficult for less experienced Architects to develop independent practices. It is our experience that clients are becoming less willing to take risk on projects and it is often thought that is it less risky to hire an Architect with more experience.

Q: Few architecture firms in Canada seem to advertise internships and several that do provide dubiously-legal compensation, what does HCMA do to nurture the next generation of designers? (Especially those who have graduated post-financial crisis, and are often out-competed by over-qualified older applicants for entry level positions)

DC: At HCMA, we are proud of our record of developing new Architects. Several years ago we recognized a problem with the length of time it was taking for our Intern-Architects to obtain their registration. We implemented a series of supports for Intern Architects that have made it much easier for them to finish the program quickly. This program has been highly successful as we seen a significant increase in the number of our Intern Architects get registered.

Q: I was curious to know what the relationship between architects and city planners/developers is like. Are they just as passionate about sustainability as well as use of city space or is it something that needs convincing most of the time?

DC: My experience is that the relationship between Architects and planners is very good. I think that the need to design our communities to be more sustainable is widely understood and that the passion for good solutions is shared.

Q: As mentioned in the talk… I find Europe is always steps ahead from North America. Their approach to architecture and space is completely different from the North American perception. I’ve looked at architecture in Europe and notice not only is it a huge consideration in city planning but is also highly accessible by means of schools, book stores dedicated to architecture, etc…We don’t have much of these resources here. Why is architecture not as important to North American society?

DC: As stated previously, I think that many European countries have matured design cultures where there is awareness in the general public of the value of design. This applies to many design disciplines. I am hopeful that this is changing and that over time North American society will appreciate the value.

Q: I’ve heard of cities that are being developed based on their transportation system, sustainability, etc…Do you find new cities that develop themselves within these structured plans are (in the long run) better developed or do you find focused cities such as these can become a problem?

DC: I don’t think is possible to generalize on this issue. What is most relevant to me and my work is the reworking of our existing cities so my focus in on that. Newly developed cities can provide interesting experiments that can help to inform changes within more established urban areas. Only time will tell if the new cities will develop into truly complete and balanced communities.