Kingsway and Broadway public hearing presentation 27 February 2012
Good evening Mr. Mayor and Council, Thank you for your time tonight. My name is Will Lin from Rize Alliance and I wanted to take a few minutes to speak to you. Our project team is here tonight, including Chris Vollan, Rize’s Vice President of development, and Acton Ostry, the project architects who will be presenting after me. But first I wanted to take a few minutes to personally speak to you and everyone here tonight. We are a local company rooted here in Vancouver. We have twenty years of experience and take pride in doing brown-field developments that pioneer important new principles in urban planning, design and location. In 2004, eight years ago, we bought the first portion of this site with the belief that Mount Pleasant, only minutes from downtown, would become a critical area to accommodate Vancouver’s growth. Over the past few years we bought four parcels of land to assemble the entire city block. Yes, given the challenges of a major rezoning process, we could have just proposed a project under the current C3A zoning, but the Public Benefit Package we have in this proposal today would then not exist. This site, being one of the only three sites that can contribute a significant Public Benefit to Mount Pleasant, is an opportunity that should not be missed.
1
This rezoning proposal is the result of a lengthy process involving community stakeholders. A letter of enquiry was submitted to Planning in 2008 and many revisions were implemented with inputs from the Community Liaison Group, Urban Design Panel and the Planning staff, to name just a few. Our Mount Pleasant Community Information Center has been open since April of last year, with two full-time staff providing up-to-date information to the 2,300 people who have visited the center, the majority of whom have lent support to the project, with over 630 signing a petition. We understand that this is one of the most extensive public outreach programmes, for any project, that has been undertaken in Mount Pleasant. We hope that you will give this proposal careful considerations, it provides 241 much needed new homes along the city’s busiest transit corridor. The demand for homes is growing, as demonstrated by another project council approved last year, Marine Gateway. To date, Marine Gateway has received approximately 8,000 registrations of interest for approximately 400 homes, showcasing there is great demand for housing along transit routes. Vancouver will continue to grow, and it is projects like this that will accommodate this growth and continue to make our city one of the most livable in the world. Thank you. 2
Kingsway & Broadway Site Rezoning
slide 1 Good Evening Mayor and Council. My name is Mark Ostry. I’m here with Russell Acton and Alan Davies, we’re from Acton Ostry Architects and our practice is located in Mount Pleasant. Also with us are Eesmyal Santos-Brault from Recollective, our Green Building and Sustainable Community consultant, and Paul Dorby from Bunt Engineering, our Transportation Planning engineers. We’re here to present the merits of this rezoning application, how it aligns with Council policy and the Mount Pleasant Community Plan, and how the density and form of development are appropriate for this location on the Broadway Transit Corridor.
3
community & rezoning planning process
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Mount Pleasant Planning Process TIMELINE
slide 2 But first, a bit of background on the process‌
4
2007
Mount Pleasant Planning Process TIMELINE
slide 3 • Rize purchased the site 3 years before the start of the Mount Pleasant Community Planning process, which began in 2007
5
2008
Mount Pleasant Planning Process TIMELINE
slide 4 • in the latter part of 2008, following the advice of the City’s Planning Department, Rize voluntarily chose to delay a rezoning application and participate in the community planning process
6
2009
Mount Pleasant Planning Process TIMELINE
slide 5 • around 2 years after the Planning process began and after attending several community planning workshops, a rezoning inquiry was submitted in early 2009 and massing options were presented and discussed at community planning workshops
7
2010
Mount Pleasant Planning Process TIMELINE
slide 6 • in 2010, the Planning Department presented a final draft of the Mount Pleasant Community Plan to the City’s Urban Design Panel. This was followed by a workshop with Rize and the Urban Design Panel to consider the density, height and form of development for the Rize site, in the context of the Community Plan • in July 2010, a rezoning application was submitted • and in November 2010, the Community Plan was approved by Council
8
2011
Mount Pleasant Planning Process TIMELINE
slide 7 • in 2011, the City hosted a Community Workshop, followed by a Public Open House • feedback was considered by the City and the rezoning was changed 2 times following consultation with City Planning and Engineering staff
9
development permit | building permit | construction
2012
Mount Pleasant Planning Process TIMELINE
slide 8 • last month the submission was revised a 3rd time, before another Public Open House • bringing us to today
10
1. protect the green zone West Vancouver North Vancouver City
District of North Vancouver
Belcara
Anmore Port Moody
Burnaby UBC
Vancouver
Coquitlam Port Coquitlam
2. build complete communities
Pitt Meadows
New Westminster
Mapleridge
3. achieve a compact metropolitan area Richmond
Surrey
4. increase transportation choice
City of Langley Township of Langley
Delta
Greater Vancouver Regional District LIVABLE REGION STRATEGIC PLAN
slide 9 • 40,000 people move to Metro Vancouver every year. Metro Vancouver will need to house 1 million more people over the next 25 years • to address this growth, The Livable Region Strategic Plan has 4 main strategies: 1. Protect the Green Zone 2. Build Complete Communities 3. Achieve a Compact Metropolitan Region; and 4. Increase Transportation Choice
11
1 Destinations
4 Density
2 Distance
5 Diversity
3 Design
6 Demand Management
source: TransLink
Transit-Oriented Communities KEY CONCEPTS
slide 10 • this rezoning supports the 6 key principles for transit-oriented communities, including Design, Diversity and Density, in the appropriate place to support future public and rapid transit • and Translink has expressed their support for this type of densification on Broadway
12
Smart Growth calls for a diverse mix of development
appropriately located in all areas of a city.
Neighbourhoods retain and build upon their unique character while adding denser housing typologies such as duplexes, coach houses, mid-rise apartments and hi-rise towers – where appropriate.
Smart Growth Density Strategy
photo: Evan Leeson
slide 11 • dense cities are scalable, sprawling suburbs are not • Given its location and proximity to the highest residential and employment densities in the region, major transit corridors, and rapid transit network, the Mount Pleasant Community is ideally located for increases in density to support and encourage future growth and to motivate anticipated transit investment in the Broadway corridor
13
RAPID TRANSIT NETWORK
MOUNT PLEASANT COMMUNITY
EXPO LINE MILLENNIUM LINE
MAJOR TRANSIT CORRIDORS
KINGSWAY
BROADWAY
MAIN ST.
CANADA LINE
Transit-Oriented Communities
slide 12 • dense cities are scalable, sprawling suburbs are not • Given its location and proximity to the highest residential and employment densities in the region, major transit corridors, and rapid transit network, the Mount Pleasant Community is ideally located for increases in density to support and encourage future growth and to motivate anticipated transit investment in the Broadway corridor
14
Kingsgate Mall Rize IGA Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood
source: Mount Pleasant Community Plan
slide 13 • The Community Plan identifies only three strategic sites for greater density and additional height – the IGA site, the Kingsgate Mall site and the Rize site
15
Neighbourhood Boundary Community Plan Area
Mount Pleasant Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood BOUNDARY & STUDY AREA
slide 14 • in the context of the Mount Pleasant Community Plan...
16
FSR of 1.0 or less
FSR between 1.0 to 3.0 MPCP Large Sites
Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood ZONING DENSITY
slide 15 • the prevailing zoning is less than 1 FSR, like single family dwellings slide 16 • on the major transit corridors, the FSR ranges between 1 and 3, with multifamily above shops and services • the urban design strategy of the Mount Pleasant Community Plan serves to preserve these mostly low and medium densities slide 17 • the 3 large sites are the only sites strategically chosen in the Community Plan for consideration of greater density and additional height • these are the only 3 sites identified in the Community Plan with the potential to achieve, through rezoning, important Public Benefits, including, affordable housing, cultural facilities, artist production space, public open space, daycare, and so on
17
source: Mount Pleasant Community Plan
Mount Pleasant Community Plan LARGE SITES
slide 18 • the Mount Pleasant Community Plan states “encourage new development of the Rize site: add more housing, expand job space for retail & office, animate the block with commercial uses”
18
distribute height & bulk in relation to adjacent streets
locate massing furthest away from Main & Broadway intersection source: Mount Pleasant Community Plan
Mount Pleasant Community Plan LARGE SITES
slide 18 cont’d • “locate massing furthest away from the Main & Broadway intersection”, “distribute the height and bulk in relation to the character of adjacent streets (more height along Broadway, reduced height on 10th, larger scale on Kingsway”)
19
Possible redevelopment south of Broadway on Kingsway including the site bounded by Broadway, Kingsway, Watson, and 10th Avenue. Possible Kingsway Redevelopment INCLUDING RIZE SITE
source: Mount Pleasant Community Plan
slide 19 • this sketch is from page 24 of the Mount Pleasant Community Plan • note the sites along Kingsway show building forms that could conceivably be developed, including the Rize site at Broadway and Kingsway
20
Mount Pleasant Community Plan FORM OF DEVELOPMENT ALIGNMENT
slide 20 • this drawing is from the rezoning proposal
21
FORM OF DEVELOPMENT ALIGNS WITH MOUNT PLEASANT COMMUNITY PLAN
Mount Pleasant Community Plan FORM OF DEVELOPMENT ALIGNMENT
slide 21 • the form of development aligns with the Community Plan • with the highest massing located on Kingsway - away from Broadway and Main • this massing is only 6-storeys taller than the highest building in Mount Pleasant!
22
“looking north on Main from 7th Ave” c. 1890
1891 pop. 13,709 City of Vancouver GROWTH
source: City of Vancouver Archives
slide 22 • 100 years ago, could anyone have imagined what the city would look like today?
23
“Main at Broadway” c. 1905
1901 pop. 26,133 City of Vancouver GROWTH
source: City of Vancouver Archives
slide 23 • in 10 years the population doubled...
24
SITE OF FUTURE LEE BUILDING
Finally... Transit and Density on Broadway!
“Main at Broadway” c. 1905
1901 pop. 26,133 City of Vancouver GROWTH
source: City of Vancouver Archives
slide 23 cont’d ...and with it came big change
25
“Looking North on Main at Broadway” c. 1922
1921 pop. 117,217
City of Vancouver GROWTH
source: City of Vancouver Archives
slide 24 • 20 years later the population more than quadrupled
26
less than 50 years of city growth
today’s population expected to double by 2050
“View Looking East from City Hall” c. 1936
1931 pop. 246,593 City of Vancouver GROWTH
source: City of Vancouver Archives
slide 25 • by 1931, in 40 years, the population grew 18-fold and the change was extensive • Vancouver has undergone significant changes over the past 100 years, and will experience even more dramatic changes over the next 100 years • by 2050, in less than 40 years, Vancouver’s population is expected to double
27
200’
100’
Sun Tower
tallest building in British Empire
1912 276’ 7.95 FSR
Rize Rezoning
proposed tallest building in Mount Pleasant 2012 215’ high 5.55 FSR
Lee Building
first tall building in Mount Pleasant
1912 82’ 7.37 FSR
Height and Density Comparison 100 YEARS
slide 26 • so, where are we now? • to put this in perspective, 100 years ago, the Sun Tower was the tallest building in the British Empire, at 276’ with a density around 8 FSR • 100 years ago, the Lee Building was the tallest building in Mount Pleasant, at 82’ with a density over 7 FSR • today, the Kingsway corridor from 7th to 12th is lined with buildings of 10- to 13-storeys
28
Form of Rezoning STUDIES & ITERATIONS
slide 27 • we studied a lot of form and massing options, these are just a few of many
29
Rezoning Application July 2010
slide 28 • and we made lots and lots of changes before submitting the rezoning application
30
Revised Rezoning Application No. 1 June 2011
slide 29 • and we changed it after submission, in response to community feedback, by dropping the height from 26-storeys to 19-storeys and by cutting the density from 6.4 FSR to 5.3 FSR, which reduced the number of guaranteed rental housing units from 62 to 15, and the massing on Watson Street and part of Kingsway were reduced in height by 1-storey while the massing on Broadway was increased by a set-back 2-storey penthouse
31
Revised Rezoning Application No. 2 October 2011
slide 30 • and we refined it — to further align with the Community Plan, following detailed consultation with City staff, by modifying the form of development to delineate a number of distinct smaller-scale building forms relating to the adjacent contexts
32
Revised Rezoning Application No. 3 January 2012
slide 31 • and we want to emphasize — we are only at the rezoning stage with a great deal of design still to follow
33
Architectural Character Broadway & Watson
slide 32 • with approval of this project, we will move forward to develop the design and architectural character, in consultation with the community and the City, to ensure that it will reflect the unique vibrant character and rich vernacular of Mount Pleasant — through art, craft, industrious creativity, diversity, animation, and variation — these are the hallmarks of Mount Pleasant that will contribute to the making of a landmark • we would like to leave you with these thoughts: • there is a great deal of difference between the character of Main Street and the character of Kingsway — Main Street is the historic street with heritage buildings such as the Lee Building, Heritage Hall, the Wenonah, and Belvedere Court, and the built form of Main Street is low- and medium-rise building heights
34
Architectural Character Broadway & Kingsway
slide 33 • Kingsway defines its character through contemporary mid- and high-rise buildings such as the Mount Pleasant Community Centre, Uno, and Stella • the urban design strategy of the Community Plan preserves the heritage character of the buildings that mark Main Street and the surrounding lowdensity neighbourhood
35
Architectural Character Kingsway & 10th Ave
slide 34 • this mixed-use project will contribute to the vitality and street life of Mount Pleasant with: wider sidewalks, space for outdoor merchant displays, enhancements to the 10th avenue bikeway, small scale retail on Broadway and shops on Watson Street, a café that wraps the corner of 10th and Kingsway, residential entries on 10th avenue and on Watson Street across from a potential transit plaza, large communal roof gardens with urban agriculture, composting, and children’s play areas
36
slide 35 • this project will incorporate: sustainable design, green roofs, storm water management, optimized water and energy performance, recycled waste heat, individual energy consumption metering for residents, plug-ins for bikes, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, shared vehicles provisions, integration of public art by local artists, and a significant community amenity contribution of $6.25 million, to achieve important Public Benefits to serve the Mount Pleasant Community, including affordable housing and cultural facilities • this rezoning application meets the intent of Council Policy: the Livable Region Strategic Plan, Greenest City, Transit-Oriented Communities, and the Mount Pleasant Community Plan — the density & form of development are appropriate for this location
37
slide 36 • We look forward to working with staff to meet, or exceed, all of the conditions recommended in the Policy Report. • We would like to thank staff for their thorough analysis of the rezoning application. We would also like to give particular thanks to Peter Burch and Scot Hein of the Planning Department who were intimately involved in the preparation and development of the Mount Pleasant Community Plan, and who both provided guidance through the community consultation and rezoning process. And we would like to thank Alison Higginson and Yardley McNeil, rezoning planners, for facilitating and managing the process with such a high level of professionalism.
38
slide 37 • Mayor and Council, we all have the opportunity and responsibility to build on Vancouver’s success as one of the most livable cities in the world, for current and future generations Thank you!
39
Observations Regarding the Aerial Rendering 27 February 2012
1. Introduction Mr. Mayor and Council, to complete our presentation, I just wanted to speak a bit about the matter of the aerial rendering that seems to have gotten a lot of attention over the last little while. I want to start off by clarifying that the renderings are not part of the rezoning documentation that was submitted to the City. The renderings were not prepared by our office. The renderings were prepared by an independent architectural rendering service experienced in the preparation of such drawings. Having seen the rendering in question, as well as an analysis of the rendering prepared by a private citizen, as well as a memo prepared by City staff, we decided to look into the matter and we wanted to share our observations with you.
41
!
$ ! # $ ! " !
$ ! $ ! # ! ! !
" !
$ ! # $ ! " !
!
2. This image is of the citizen’s analysis using multiple vanishing points and camera position assumptions. When the perspectival lines are extended, 3 vanishing points appear on the left, where we would expect to see just one, and 5 vanishing points appear on the right, where we would also expect to see only one. An assumption is stated regarding the height of the camera. Is the assumption correct? One can’t help but wonder what margin of error is associated with the assumptions made regarding the height of the camera and the location of the multiple vanishing points – which were presumably used to locate the Citizen’s 3-D model in the context photo.
42
" ( ,! $ ! " &" ) " *
! % "" #$ %! $ !( % ! $ % %! !' # $ +-! % , ! % "" #$ %! $ !( % ! % )% & !' # $ $ % "" #$ %! # $% ! %!" !# +-! %, !' #$ % " # !%
! " $ ! )+ "!* $ " " &"
' $ ! )+ "!* $ " " &"
! % "" #$ %! $ !( % ! % )% & !' # $ $ % "" #$ %! #! ! %! %# % ! % "" #$ %! $ !( ! % )% & $ % ! %!" ! !# -! % !' $%# % % * ## % % % ! % )% $ !' # $ !# +-! % , ( * % # $! * %! % ! &$ ! % % % ! ! % "#! % $ !' # $ !# +-! %$, $! $ %! "" # % # % " !%! # " ! % )% % % * %& *
$ ! $ ! ! $ ! )+ "!* $ " " &" )+ "!* $ " " &" (
" ( ,! % " $ ! ) " * " &" # !
D A
B
C
3. This image shows what appears to be an over-scaled context model, and what appears to be a “floatingâ€? or elevated 3-D Model that was prepared by the citizen. Detail ‘A’ appears to show the Kingsgate Mall 3-D model, over-scaled and “floatingâ€? above the photo context. Detail ‘B’ appears to show Caffe Barney, over-scaled and also “floatingâ€? above the photo context. Detail ‘C’ appears to show Waves Coffee projecting onto Main Street and elevated above a car. Detail ‘D’ appears to show Pings CafĂŠ hovering directly above 11th Avenue. Taking these anomalies into consideration, one can’t help but wonder what margin of error is associated with the relative size and scale of the citizen’s 3-D model in relation to the context photo.
43
#% " + ' 4 )% ' (%$ ". *' ) $ ) %'# $ # (( $ ) # (*' ( 2 %+ ( &" $ ( # ) ( ' /%$ $ &&" ) %$ ((*#&) %$( # ' ' $ ) % # ' %+ ' "% ) %$ % # ' $ &" $ # ' " $( ( / # ' " $( ).& %' $) ) %$ % # ' " $( 0 $%) ((*#&) %$( ' ) ( $ $ ' ( $ # ' $ % ''%'
C’
#% " " %+ ' ' $ ' $ )% + ' (%$ ". &&'%- # ) # ) % &'%! ) $ %$) -) , ) ' $ ' $ % $) $ 3 % ' $ ' $ $ #% " " $ )% + ' (%$ " # ) % ) % )%, '
% $) $ 3 % ' $ ' $ $ #% " " $ )% + ' (%$ " # ) % ) % %$) -) * " $ $ %' '%*$ #% " ()%') $ $ - ( $%) $ ) )% + ' (%$ " " $# $) % &'%! ) $ %$) -) , ) ' $ ' $ )% %#& $( ) % ()%') %$ * )% , $ " " $( $ %' # $ &*" ) %$ % %$) -) & %)%
D’
% $) $ 3 % ' $ ' $ $ #% " " $ )% + ' (%$ " # ) % &" # $) % )%, ' $ %$) -) % $) $ 3 % ' $ ' $ $ #% " " $ )% + ' (%$ " # ) % %$) -) * " $ $ %' '%*$ $ ' $ ( %,( 1' (%$ " 2 & ) %$ % &'%! ) $ %$) -) 0 + $ ) ((*#&) %$( $ # ' $ % ''%' $ ' $) $ ) ' ) %$ % (* $ #
A
A’
C D B
B’
4. This image shows the Rize Rendering, and a 3-D model of the rezoning proposal, prepared by our office. The top of the towers, shown by line ‘A’, are in alignment. The top of the nearby context building, shown by line ‘B’, are in alignment The side of the towers, shown by line ‘C’, are in alignment. And, the corner of the nearby context building, shown by line ‘D’, are in alignment.
44
,1# 1&# 0 *# (#1!& 2- *,"#) & 0 ##+ 20#" '+ 1&'0 1#01 0 4 0 20#" ,+ 0&##1 +, 1, -#/$,/* !,*- /'0,+ 4'1& 1&# *,"#)
& 1 '0 (+,4+ '0 1& 1 1&# #5 !1 0 *# (#1!& 2- *,"#) ! + # * +'-2) 1#" 1, --# / 1, /#) 1'3#)6 * 1!& ,1& 1&# /1'01 /#+"#/'+% "#-'!1',+ +" 1&# "#-'!1',+ ,4#3#/ +2*#/,20 002*-1',+0 4'1& 00,!' 1#" * /%'+0 ,$ #//,/ & 3# 1, # * "# '+ ,1& ! 0#0 1, !&'#3# 1&# "#0'/#" /#02)1
,'+10 < < < < --# / 1, )'%+
)1&,2%& 1&# 1,- ,$ 1&# *,"#) ! + # * "# 1, )'%+ < < 1, * (# 1&# ,11,* )'%+ 1&# 3#/1'! ) "'*#+0',+ 4,2)" & 3# 1, # #),+% 1#" ' # 01/#1!&#" < 1 --# /0 1& 1 1&# *,"#) :>, 10; ,3# 1&# %/,2+" ,$ 1&# !,+1#51 < +" 1& 1 '1 & 0 ##+ *,"#)#" :1&'++#/; 1, --# / 1 ))#/ < <
)) 1& 1 ! + # 01 1#" 4'1& +6 "#%/## ,$ !#/1 '+16 '0 1& 1
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
8 1&# --)'! 1',+ '+!)2"#0 )) ",!2*#+1 1',+ /#.2'/#" 6 1&# '16 1, -/,!#00 +" 00#00 02!& + --)'! 1',+
8 1&# '16 & 0 /#3'#4#" /#7,+'+% --)'! 1',+ 02 *'11#" 6 !1,+ 01/6 /!&1'#!10 +!
8 1&# '16 & 0 /#3'#4#" 1&# ",!2*#+1 1',+ !,+1 '+#" '+ 1&# --)'! 1',+ +" 1&# ) ++'+% #- /1*#+1 & 0 !,+!)2"#" 1& 1 1&#6 /#!,**#+" 1& 1 ,2+!') --/,3# 1&# /#7,+'+% --)'! 1',+ & 1 '0 4& 1 ! + # !,+!)2"#" 4'1& !#/1 '+16
A
Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
B
Bâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
G Gâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
H Hâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
Câ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
C Fâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
F
E
Eâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
D
Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
5. This image is of the citizenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 3-D model, and the same model of the rezoning proposal prepared by our office, that was used in the previous slide. The top of the towers and Broadway massing, shown by lines â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Aâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Bâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, are in alignment. The top of the nearby context buildings, shown by line â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Câ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, are in alignment. However, the bottom of the tower, shown at points â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Eâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Fâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, do not align. The 3-D model appears to be elevated in relation to the context photo. In addition, the 3-D model appears to be narrower, as indicated by points â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Gâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Hâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. Taking these anomalies into consideration, what margin of error is associated with the relative size and scale of the 3-D model in relation to the context photo? 45
! "
! "
6. These renderings were produced during the same time period by the same renderer. As you can see, depending on the location of the viewpoint, the focal length of the lens, the tilt of the camera and a variety of other factors, the building looks different in each of the renderings. When viewed from above, the building looks squat. When viewed from below, the building looks tall.
46
2
! " "
7. This image shows City staffâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 3-D model placed between the Rize rendering on the left, and the citizenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 3-D model on the right. As you are aware, Staff prepared a memo in response to the citizenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis. While we were very impressed with the technical content in the report, it appears the 3-D model in the centre was depicted using 3-point perspective, while the other 2 depictions utilize 2-point perspective.
47
" !
!
) % " #" $" & ! # ! " $ ( ) & ! !# ! # % " #" # ! " ! "# # # '# # & $ # ! "$ # ! !! ! # ! ! $
) ! & # # % ! $ " # ! ""$ # & " # ""$ # ! ! # #$ # # # # # ! & " # ) # ""$ # & ! ( ! # # & # & $ # ! !! ! ! # ! ! " # #
) !" # # + , ! # " # # " # " ( # # # " # " # # # '# # # # $ # # ! ! # " & ( " # " * ! ! # #
) % " #" $" & ! # ! " $ ( ) & ! !# ! # % " #" # ! " ! "# # # '# # & $ # ! "$ # ! !! ! # ! ! $
X
!" " $ # #$ $ #$ " #"! #$ %
8. The City model appears to use a set of vanishing points that differ from that of the context photo. Finally, the model appears to be just a tiny bit too big as the new proposed wider sidewalk setbacks donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t appear in the photo context. So What Does This Tell Us? Well, it tells us that the making of architectural renderings is a bit more of an art than they are a science â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and a fairly complex one at that! A two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional object will always carry with it some degree of error. Renderings are simply meant to provide an impression. The way we see it, the Rize rendering, the Citizenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 3-D model and the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 3-D model are all reasonable depictions of the project. What you see simply depends on how you want to â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and how you choose to â&#x20AC;&#x201C; look at it. 48