Development of Heritage Neighborhoods (Granville, Yaletown, Chinatown, etc.)

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

This really makes me angry. Both Holborn and the City are at fault for not ensuring that this 1909-built heritage building is kept in tip-top condition. Another example of how turning heritage buildings into SROs will ensure their destruction: either through neglect or constant abuse. Many structures were burned down in this region because they house irresponsible addicts who smoke, etc. Others are neglected so much they cannot be utilized to their fullest potential to house ordinary people, or turn into profitable business venues such as hotels or hostels, retail or food & beverage businesses. I am very appalled at what this City has come to.

It's 100% Holborn's responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the building. The City's responsibility is ensuring it's safe, and if it isn't safe, doing something about it (which is what they're doing now). All Holborn had to do was protect the roof. Even a wooden subframe on the roof, with plywood and heavy-duty tarps would have worked. Because they didn't protect it, the building has deteriorated to the point that it's unsafe.

The potential addition of the building as a protected heritage resource was an opportunity to get residential density, but being Holborn, they've even blown that. Ironically, I think they're still on the hook to replace the 187 SRO rooms (which they briefly managed as a student residence, as the canopy shows, before the building was closed as unsafe, and they chose not to make the necessary repairs to reopen it). BC Housing paid to repair the plumbing and roof about 15 years ago, so there's even less excuse for Holborn's neglect.

It's sad because it was avoidable, and it's a good example of the hotels from the early 1900s that's still relatively unaltered. When it was still a prestigeous hotel, in the early 1920s, it ran electric buss to transport clients from the stations. Early history here and here.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Although in my opinion this should be the case in all neighborhoods, areas like Gastown and Strathcona should have simple guidelines that say all new buildings must faithfully mimic older architectural styles. People care about the neighborhood looking old, not that the individual bricks are from the 1800s.

This. Nobody's stopping developers from integrating brick cladding and cornices into every new tower.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

As someone who lean to the side of historical preservation, I think it's less important to keep every old building as it is, than to allow some old buildings to be demolished in exchange for the new building to have a historical design. Not a modern interpretation, like the same design an old building would have architecturally. This should especially be the case when old buildings are deliberately left to rot like with 500 Dunsmuir.

Although in my opinion this should be the case in all neighborhoods, areas like Gastown and Strathcona should have simple guidelines that say all new buildings must faithfully mimic older architectural styles. People care about the neighborhood looking old, not that the individual bricks are from the 1800s.

These already exist. And yet people still complain.

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/guidelines-ha-2-gastown.pdf

https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/guidelines-rt-3.pdf

Conservationists (AKA conservatives) are never happy with any change, I don't know why we even bother placating with guidelines.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

This. Nobody's stopping developers from integrating brick cladding and cornices into every new tower.

District 1881 in Chilliwack turned out okay, for instance.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Untrue, there's nothing stopping us from building modern interpretations of early 20th century architectural styles.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/UXhBRF5K5gCtRc6t7

Let the city grow and change. Cities aren't meant to be museums they're meant for people to live, work, and play in.

But would still be a modern interpretation and that usually entails being cheaper and more "plaster deep" Disneyesque historicism. If the building's a write off there's no reason this facade couldn't be preserved for a tall building behind it.

Someone in a position of authority needs to read the riot act to Holborn. They've been nothing but bad news at the civic level since they set up Junior here.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

As someone who lean to the side of historical preservation, I think it's less important to keep every old building as it is, than to allow some old buildings to be demolished in exchange for the new building to have a historical design. Not a modern interpretation, like the same design an old building would have architecturally. This should especially be the case when old buildings are deliberately left to rot like with 500 Dunsmuir.

Although in my opinion this should be the case in all neighborhoods, areas like Gastown and Strathcona should have simple guidelines that say all new buildings must faithfully mimic older architectural styles. People care about the neighborhood looking old, not that the individual bricks are from the 1800s.

That's not what heritage guidelines (national, or local) support. New buildings should look like they're modern. Historic buildings should be restored to match as closely as possible to how they were originally intended to look. Often it's just the facade that can be saved (see GenWhy's comment about problems with current code requirements in old buildings).

Here's part of the Gastown Guideline "New buildings should not be designed in a pseudo-historic style, replicate existing buildings, or buildings that once existed, as this erodes the value of authentic heritage buildings. Rather, a new architectural vocabulary is encouraged that complements the heritage character of original Gastown buildings."

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Here's part of the Gastown Guideline "New buildings should not be designed in a pseudo-historic style, replicate existing buildings, or buildings that once existed, as this erodes the value of authentic heritage buildings. Rather, a new architectural vocabulary is encouraged that complements the heritage character of original Gastown buildings."

Yeah it's absolutely ridiculous. "We must fight to preserve our old buildings because they're so nice to look at, but don't you fucking dare build any more!"

I suppose it's all indicative of the conservative mindset in Vancouver. In the same way that towers on Broadway somehow ruin the lives of Kits residents purely by existing, building similar buildings in Gastown somehow ruins the existing buildings in Gastown by existing near them and being menacingly similar...

I think it just proves that the entire historical preservation movement is just a poison pill to prevent development and not some serious desire to actually preserve an aesthetic.

[GenWhy?]

""New buildings should not be designed in a pseudo-historic style, replicate existing buildings, or buildings that once existed, as this erodes the value of authentic heritage buildings. Rather, a new architectural vocabulary is encouraged that complements the heritage character of original Gastown buildings.""

Those are some crap rules, IMO. Only old buildings can be old is crap. I thought these were only for additions

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's 100% Holborn's responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the building. The City's responsibility is ensuring it's safe, and if it isn't safe, doing something about it (which is what they're doing now). All Holborn had to do was protect the roof. Even a wooden subframe on the roof, with plywood and heavy-duty tarps would have worked. Because they didn't protect it, the building has deteriorated to the point that it's unsafe.

The potential addition of the building as a protected heritage resource was an opportunity to get residential density, but being Holborn, they've even blown that. Ironically, I think they're still on the hook to replace the 187 SRO rooms (which they briefly managed as a student residence, as the canopy shows, before the building was closed as unsafe, and they chose not to make the necessary repairs to reopen it). BC Housing paid to repair the plumbing and roof about 15 years ago, so there's even less excuse for Holborn's neglect.

It's sad because it was avoidable, and it's a good example of the hotels from the early 1900s that's still relatively unaltered. When it was still a prestigeous hotel, in the early 1920s, it ran electric buss to transport clients from the stations. Early history here and here.

A city should also be responsible for the health of heritage buildings. Vancouver should be fining Holborn for letting this building get to the current state. You are just giving excuses for a City not living up to its own responsibility. Holborn is also at fault for not maintaining the structure, and that goes without saying.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

A city should also be responsible for the health of heritage buildings. Vancouver should be fining Holborn for letting this building get to the current state. You are just giving excuses for a City not living up to its own responsibility. Holborn is also at fault for not maintaining the structure, and that goes without saying.

I don't think it was a register or protected heritage building. Legally I don't know what they can do.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

A city should also be responsible for the health of heritage buildings. Vancouver should be fining Holborn for letting this building get to the current state. You are just giving excuses for a City not living up to its own responsibility. Holborn is also at fault for not maintaining the structure, and that goes without saying.

We never have this mentality for any other private property. Should the government be out telling art collectors that you're not allowed to alter or destroy every dingy old painting and must restore them? Classic cars must be kept in working condition? Clothing made by 19th century seamstresses can't be unsewn to reuse the fabric? The old gas station isn't allowed to be closed down? My garden has to have the same perennials every year? Companies aren't allowed to replace typewriters with computers? Perhaps industrialists aren't allowed to replace the saboteurs with machinery?

Society grows and improves because we allow for change and we allow ourselves to let go of the past.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I don't think it was a register or protected heritage building. Legally I don't know what they can do.

It was on the VHR.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It was on the VHR.

Correct, but I understand that it's classification didn't really mean anything? A, B, C category?

Then again that hasn't stopped the City in the past from making builders preserve facades or structures that are not listed.

[GenWhy?]

Unless the whole VHR has protection status?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Unless the whole VHR has protection status?

It's a 'B' on the Vancouver Heritage Register. That doesn't mean it's protected. Holborn would have to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement for it to be protected, but as we know, they haven't actually got round to proposing a scheme that fits policy or zoning. They also don't seem to have even ben inspecting their property at all, for years. Unless they're happy to see it get torn dowm, of course. The Little Mountain saga suggests they're not too bothered about their reputation as a developer.

There's a by-law that allows the City to fine them up to $10,000 for neglecting the building - but unless Holborn are going to spend a great deal of money to make the structure safe, in a hurry, (if there's a way that could save it safely) it appears to be too late.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Correct, but I understand that it's classification didn't really mean anything? A, B, C category?

Then again that hasn't stopped the City in the past from making builders preserve facades or structures that are not listed.

They actually got rid of the A/B/C categories in October.

Originally Posted by chowhou

https://vancouversun.com/news/vancouver-heritage-buildings-register-cultural-diversity

More poison pills for development on the way. "Heritage building" might just mean "an indigenous person was here once", now.

[jollyburger]

The October 2024 council report:

The comprehensive overhaul of Vancouver Heritage Register policy reinforces our commitment to honoring Vancouver's diverse cultures, prioritizing community values, and integrating our heritage assets at the heart of our urban planning practice. By listening to the community and embracing diverse approaches to cultural heritage, we're advancing towards more inclusive and equitable community building and land-use decisions.

The updated VHR policy:

Clarifies its purpose
Defines eligibility criteria
Streamlines the application and evaluation process
Expands the scope of eligible places by recognizing a broader range of heritage values

https://council.vancouver.ca/20241008/documents/r3.pdf

[EastVanMark]

Nice to see a few people on here seeing the obvious tactic used by the developer to rid themselves of a troubled building by letting it rot and hoping the city does something about it to save them the PR issues.

This building is in a great spot but has awkward issues from a design perspective so starting from scratch is a lot easier. This is where the city should step in but we all know their priorities and heritage is not one of them.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

They actually got rid of the A/B/C categories in October.

Oh right... thanks for reminding me of the vague new additions. I was more hung up on that it seems than reading the rest of the changes.

Still think it'll be a nightmare, but I guess I'll be the one to find out first hand one day.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

We never have this mentality for any other private property. Should the government be out telling art collectors that you're not allowed to alter or destroy every dingy old painting and must restore them? Classic cars must be kept in working condition? Clothing made by 19th century seamstresses can't be unsewn to reuse the fabric? The old gas station isn't allowed to be closed down? My garden has to have the same perennials every year? Companies aren't allowed to replace typewriters with computers? Perhaps industrialists aren't allowed to replace the saboteurs with machinery?

Society grows and improves because we allow for change and we allow ourselves to let go of the past.



It was on the VHR.

So why do tourists from all over the world flock to Rome, Paris etc?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So why do tourists from all over the world flock to Rome, Paris etc?

Oh yes, because tourists absolutely flock to Vancouver to view 500 Dunsmuir. Or are they coming to see 487 Helmcken? No, no, it must be 2627 Dundas that they're coming to see! Aren't you one of the people that rags on others for calling Vancouver a world class city? Surely you're not trying to compare 500 Dunsmuir to the Colosseum.

It's so ironic you bring up Paris because, as I'm sure others have pointed out to you many times in the past, around the time of Vancouver's founding they decided that the old city of Paris was crap and dangerous and inefficient and needed to be demolished so they tore down everything to build the Paris of today. The Hastings Mills Store is older than most of Paris.