Orphaned Properties
 

This thread is for orphaned properties that were created when the owners of said properties failed to get them integrated into developments next to them. They may be further developed but will likely never reach the density that would have been possible if they were integrated.

Please provide further examples in Vancouver as they are identified.

Any example of this is 948 Howe St which was not integrated into neighboring developments such as 980 Howe St to the south.

http://i1072.photobucket.com/albums/...0-982howe2.jpg
Photo credit: me

980 Howe St thread

http://i1072.photobucket.com/albums/...psbe95e643.jpg
Photo credit: me

Edward Chapman building not integrated into new Credit Suisse office tower

Credit Suisse Thread

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Someone beat me to it!!! That's the one I had mentioned in a post a moment ago.

Thank god this building wasn't included in the Credit Suisse project. It's continued existence is the only thing that makes it economically possible that the eight-story office building next to it could be redeveloped into a full office tower one day. Indeed, since there is a little bit of a viewcone shadow over the site, it's possible such a tower could be taller than Credit Suisse. Such a tower would also finally block out Jameson's ugly side. Had Credit Suisse managed to acquire this building, I don't think it would have ever been economically feasible to substantially redevelop the corner of Pender and Hornby, and the small brick office building would have truly become an orphan, leaving Jameson exposed for all time.

There's the Delmar Hotel beside the BC Hydro building:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oqMowCUEG5...M/s640/034.JPG

Credit: http://vancouverstreetblog.blogspot....1_archive.html

Nice one. If I remember correctly the little brown sign to the above right of the door says the building isn't for sale. Hydro keeps trying to buy it, I think.

http://changingcitybook.files.wordpr...elus-model.jpg
Source: ChangingCityBook blog

There is the Kingston on Richards, of course. Surrounded by Telus to the north, south and west.

I recall the owners of Kingston refuses to sell out to Telus, and I think it was quite admirable. Why should they give up a family business that has been with them for generations just to have a slight extension of the amenity area of yet another residential condo? Besides....it is integrating well to the Telus Gardens anyway...

As for the Edward Chapman, since 1890...maybe the facade, though not super pretty, may have some historic value? I agree that 8 storey office building is fugly and must be torn down ASAP, so whatever new development takes over, perhaps integrate the Edward Chapman facade?

Anyone know the history behind that BC Hydro building next door. I'm assuming they bought that land but with the holdout they just built some retail/storage space?

I do not think this building (or the Kingston Hotel) properly qualifies as an "orphaned" building. Like the Kingston Hotel, it's a charming, architecturally valuable heritage building that stands on its own, independent and self-justifying. It merits restoration, not demolition or redevelopment.

Roughly speaking, I think an "orphaned" building should be defined as: a building of little architectural value which warrants redevelopment but that is unlikely to be redeveloped due to its small parcel size which was left isolated when it was excluded from a neighbouring redevelopment.

Under this definition, 948 Howe likely qualifies as an orphaned building. But I do not think the Edward Chapman building qualifies because it hasn't been left isolated; there is a small, unattractive 8-storey brick building immediately adjacent to it. Together, these two sites constitute a contiguous parcel of sufficient size to economically justify a substantial redevelopment. Indeed, I predict that is exactly what will happen within the medium term.

I think "holdout" is the best term and gets away from the quality of the architecture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdout_(architecture)

Regarding the Kingston, does anyone know if there are there still plans to redevelop it? From what I recall there was a plan to keep the existing facade and build about 12 storeys behind it.

Actually, with respect to the two examples that Jimbo604 posted (i.e., 948 Howe and the Edward Chapman building), that is precisely what was implicitly being talked about. Or do you wish to argue that 948 Howe and the Edward Chapman building would have been included inside the larger developments without being torn down or redeveloped?

But regardless, my intention was to introduce a point of conceptual organization to the discussion of "orphaned" buildings (which can be accepted or rejected or enlarged). And I did so politely. :koko:

Well, I would define it (for this thread) as a building that was offered to be incorporated into an adjacent development and for whatever reason that did not happen and now said building won't realize the potential it had if it were incorporated into the development.

So basically lose the cool interior, the awesome patio and have a shudder-worthy piece of facadism like Trapp & Holbrook.

Okay. But I would just leave you with two things to consider:

1) Does the Edward Chapman building fit your definition? After all, it's not isolated. When conjoined with the adjacent site, it constitutes a parcel sufficiently large to accommodate an office tower at least as tall as the Credit Suisse building (possibly taller due to a partial viewcone shadow). Thus, it's not the case that "the said building won't realize the potential it had if it were incorporated into the [Credit Suisse] development," since it may still realize an equal or greater potential in a future development.

2) If the building is architecturally exceptional or possesses substantial historical value, is it's fullest potential (and the city's) not realized by being left alone, with its integrity intact? Of course, you probably mean economic potential. However, if protected from inappropriate alteration under "Schedule A," a historically important building might have reached its economic potential too.

I heard that BC Hydro had to reverse the site plan of their project because they couldn't buy the Del Mar site. The tower was originally supposed to be on the Homer side of the site, and a maintenace wing became a separate small building.

Sorry, I edited that out afterwards since it was not very polite. :)

I think that orphaned properties is properly associated with dilapidated buildings regardless if they could have been added to a larger development. While holdouts are small pieces next to or inside of a larger development that most likely refused a buyout offer.

I've always considered orphaned properties to be defined as those that didn't join in an adjacent development thereby impairing its own future development potential and value as a result. They don't necessarily have to be in poor condition.

IMO, the most classic Vancouver example is the Hy's building on Hornby Street. It didn't join in the development of Cathedral Place and at 31 feet frontage, has virtually no potential for redevelopment now...

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3358/...006813074d.jpg013009-15.27.18 by Pak T, on Flickr

I could see it as a very exclusive club, or restarant, but that's about it.