[Updated 2 pm, 31-Jan-2012: Against opposing votes by Clrs Carr and Affleck, Vision Vancouver Councillors rammed this through Council this morning. A rezoning hearing is coming soon. Vision accepted the staff statements (avoiding the issue of this image) that the application was ready to go to hearing. Our original story continues… ] On the agenda for the January 31 Council Meeting is the policy report on the large Rize Alliance rezoning proposal for the corner of Kingsway and Broadway . Council may chose to refer the item to public hearing at this time, hear from speakers, or send the report back to staff.
There is only a single perspective rendering in the entire report. It shows a high aerial view of the proposed development. CityHallWatch has learned that there may be serious issues with the portrayal of building, as described below. The image on the left is a comparison of the tower as rendered in the report; the image on the right shows a computer model super-imposed on that image:
A computer model of the proposal was built independently of the applicant using the plans and elevations of the proposal available on the city’s website. This is the same computer model that was shown at the recent Open House on January 17 by RAMP (Residents Association Mount Pleasant) at the community group’s information table. We note that matching a computer model and a photo is a time-consuming and specialized task, so City Council and the public have no choice, typically, than to accept what is presented by Planning Department staff or the proponent. The following image shows other buildings in Mount Pleasant in context:
A big clue about the height of the original photograph is from the position of a highrise at 350 Kingsway and 12th (The Stella). Note that the very top of this building is above the horizon line. This is a clear indication that the camera is just below the roof of this building. The rendering in the staff report shows that the main roof level is below the Stella’s roof in height.
Do the renderings in the staff report under-represent the true height of the building, by 5-6 floors? You be the judge. The tower at 180 Kingsway is 222 feet in height. The lower highrise along Broadway is 118 feet high (vs. Lee Building at 81 ft). For comparison, the 4-storey building on the northeast corner of Main & 10th is 55 ft in height (205 East 10th). Does the frontage of the Rize proposal appear to be over double this height, or only marginally taller than this 4-storey building?
Council and members of the public count on the accuracy of the graphics in staff reports to fairly illustrate proposals. Should council be debating this report based on this illustration? In addition to this graphic, there are a number of serious issues that have not been addressed in this rezoning (see rampvancouver.com for more details, or this article).
Expanding this topic further, we note that academic papers have been written on the ethics of visualization, including one that appears in Landscape & Urban Planning, authored by a UBC professor (see full citation at end). A Visioning Guidance Manual is also available for download from UBC, summarizing the findings of this paper (see p. 80).
Some of the general principles for landscape visualization (these principles also apply to urban planning) include:
Accuracy: Realistic visualizations should simulate the actual or expected appearance of the landscape as closely as possible (at least for those aspects of the landscape being considered).
Legitimacy: The visualization should be defensible through making the simulation process and assumptions transparent to the viewer, and by clearly describing the expected level of accuracy and uncertainty.
The code of ethical conduct has several key points, including:
* Estimate and disclose the expected degree of error and uncertainty.
* Avoid the use or the appearance of “sales” techniques or special effects.
* Avoid seeking a particular response from the audience.
Please consult the full Academic paper on Visualization Ethics for more details:
Sheppard, S.R.J. 2000. Guidance for crystal ball gazers: Developing a code of ethics for landscape visualization. Landscape & Urban Planning, Volume 54, 25 May 2001, Pages 183-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00135-9.
CityHallWatch takes the case study approach. We have noted other cases in the past two years in which images presented to City Council in staff reports appear to be incorrect. Is it time to initiate a review of the processes leading to these staff reports? Is it time to introduce a system of independent third-party reviews of the technical aspects of staff reports to Council? Is it time for a discussion at City Hall about the ethics of visualization? Is the public getting a fair deal? These topics deserve further consideration.
In closing, here is an additional image showing computer model & rendering match (with horizon):
CityHallWatch: Tools to engage in Vancouver city decisions 
This uncovering of the deception being played out by Developers to the public is why I am fighting against the progress of this development in it’s current state.
City Hall has got to fundamentally be held accountable regardless if the Developers are trying to dupe them as it is their responsibility to make sure what is constructed in Vancouver is done so based on all ‘true’ representations, not skewered renderings.
It’s time to wake up citizens of Vancouver and stop being so complacent! Hold those responsible accountable.
Michelle – concerned citizen of Mt Pleasant
Visual ethics needs to be addressed. There are some serious visual flaws with this rezoning proposal. I’ve recently found out that the applicant can use different models. One, called the massing model, is the official one presented to the City. It supposedly must be completely accurate. However, the other one, the marketing model which is shown to the community, apparently doesn’t have to be accurate at all. This is the case with RIZE. First, they have additional buildings that don’t exist added to the model which camouflage the magnitude of the proposed building. Once those are taken off, the model looks completely different and the building stands out like a sore thumb. Second, the buildings are not built to scale. I confirmed this with the scale model company. These are just more tactics with which to mislead the public. Seeing is not always believing…
In my opinion the image on the city hall document make the building look more like a monster than the ones in the artcle.