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

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

This is where the city should step in but we all know their priorities and heritage is not one of them.

I don't think the City can do anything, at this moment.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I don't think the City can do anything, at this moment.

Heritage buildings are irrationally important to politically active conservative voters so I'm sure if city council could have done something, they would.

[Vin]

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.

And pray tell why it wasn't? I guess 115 years isn't old enough.

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.

"We never have this mentality for any other private property." And where did you get that from? If you can afford a heritage property, it is your responsibility to maintain it. If not, the City should be stepping in.

"Society grows and improves because we allow for change and we allow ourselves to let go of the past." It can also go into the shitters, as in the case here, when we allow irresponsible individuals to run the show.

Originally Posted by whatnext

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

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

I don't think the City can do anything, at this moment.

Hence, it's a lame duck. Not necessary the fault of ABC, but previous administrations set the system up such that the City is ineffective in ensuring the preservation of heritage structures. I hope the current administration learn from this and enact new bylaws.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

And pray tell why it wasn't? I guess 115 years isn't old enough.

Do you think every single old building has to be protected and retained forever? How old does my parents' house have to be to be protected until the end of the universe? I think you should come out against the provincial TOD plans because it means in Brentwood tearing down dozens if not hundreds of 1950s era bungalows (Many are over 70 years old now, heritage!!)

And where did you get that from? If you can afford a heritage property, it is your responsibility to maintain it. If not, the City should be stepping in.

And if you have a registered classic car it's your responsibility to maintain it, no? If not ICBC should step in and fine you right?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Do you think every single old building has to be protected and retained forever? How old does my parents' house have to be to be protected until the end of the universe? I think you should come out against the provincial TOD plans because it means in Brentwood tearing down dozens if not hundreds of 1950s era bungalows (Many are over 70 years old now, heritage!!)

And if you have a registered classic car it's your responsibility to maintain it, no? If not ICBC should step in and fine you right?

You try your best to do it, and ensure the preservation. Many older structures cannot be created today not only because of today's cost, but also the lack of skills involved, such as the refined masonry work, etc. Furthermore, with so few of these structures around, the City should step up in ensuring their preservation.

If my classic car is the last one of its kind, it would be a crime to purposely neglect it to become a rusty heap when I can well afford to have it kept in tip-top condition. What's the point of having it in the first place if I intend to destroy it? Only barbarians destroy.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Hence, it's a lame duck. Not necessary the fault of ABC, but previous administrations set the system up such that the City is ineffective in ensuring the preservation of heritage structures. I hope the current administration learn from this and enact new bylaws.

Might be more of a legal thing this council would have to review, I'd imagine. Since they didn't really add anything to the October update, maybe this demolition will trigger Council to do another... Staff review.

Same outcome as some of the DTES buildings, so if nothing came from those demolitions I don't expect it here either.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

You try your best to do it, and ensure the preservation. Many older structures cannot be created today not only because of today's cost, but also the lack of skills involved, such as the refined masonry work, etc. Furthermore, with so few of these structures around, the City should step up in ensuring their preservation.

If my classic car is the last one of its kind, it would be a crime to purposely neglect it to become a rusty heap when I can well afford to have it kept in tip-top condition. What's the point of having it in the first place if I intend to destroy it? Only barbarians destroy.

So you surely must believe that SFH neighbourhoods in Vancouver are being threatened and we need to stop tearing them down because they can no longer be created today. Once they're gone, they're gone. Brentwood Park must be saved from developers, repeal Bill 47, right!? Only barbarians destroy family neighbourhoods to build shoeboxes in the sky!

[Vin]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Might be more of a legal thing this council would have to review, I'd imagine. Since they didn't really add anything to the October update, maybe this demolition will trigger Council to do another... Staff review.

Same outcome as some of the DTES buildings, so if nothing came from those demolitions I don't expect it here either.

The City can force Holborn to demolish the rotten innards of the building, and have the facade walls propped up for future preservation if they want to avoid being fined. That is the right thing to do.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

So you surely must believe that SFH neighbourhoods in Vancouver are being threatened and we need to stop tearing them down because they can no longer be created today. Once they're gone, they're gone. Brentwood Park must be saved from developers, repeal Bill 47, right!? Only barbarians destroy family neighbourhoods to build shoeboxes in the sky!

You can't use the demolition of the ubiquitous Single Family houses in the burbs as examples of the lack of preservation. The house types and styles can be found all over the City and present nothing unique. An example is the "Vancouver Special" or the blocky "Walk-ups". It is like saying if a rundown house common in Paris's suburb were to be demolished, then Eifel tower can also be demolished with all our collective conscience intact. City centre heritage structures are admired and used by a lot more people and visitors/tourists year-round. No one goes to admire your parent's "heritage" house in the boonies.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

You can't use the ubiquitous SFH neighbourhoods as examples of preservation. The house types and styles can be found all over the City and present nothing unique. It is like saying if a rundown house common in Paris's suburb were to be demolished, then Eifel tower can also be demolished. City centre heritage structures are admired and used by a lot more people and visitors/tourists year-round. No one goes to admire your parent's "heritage" house in the boonies.

No one goes to admire 500 Dunsmuir. Nice try. I can't believe you're actually comparing it to the Eiffel Tower.

But by this logic, surely you support removing all the old decrepit houses that are on the heritage register right? Nothing special about SFHs yeah?

Don't you realise that Brentwood Park is the last remaining example of a post-WW2 bungalow working class neighbourhood? This housing type is a typical example of the type of housing built for the working class population when Burnaby was a quiet residential area. As WW2 vets returned from the war, housing was in short supply so this housing type was rapidly built to support the growing needs of the region. *some more bullshit*

Oh oops I was reading off of this page.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

You can't use the demolition of the ubiquitous Single Family houses in the burbs as examples of the lack of preservation. The house types and styles can be found all over the City and present nothing unique. An example is the "Vancouver Special" or the blocky "Walk-ups". It is like saying if a rundown house common in Paris's suburb were to be demolished, then Eifel tower can also be demolished with all our collective conscience intact. City centre heritage structures are admired and used by a lot more people and visitors/tourists year-round. No one goes to admire your parent's "heritage" house in the boonies.

"B. THAT Council approve the resolution attached as Appendix “A” to this report, and thereby order the registered owner of the Property to demolish the building, remove the demolition debris from the Property, and fill in the basement on the Property within 21 days of a copy of the resolution being served on the owner pursuant to section 324A and 324D of the Vancouver Charter. "

Guess we'll find out at 3:00pm today.


from aDB's report:

"Conclusion: Given the significant risks to worker and public safety posed by the building's deteriorating condition, we recommend immediate demolition. The building's structural integrity is compromised, and the presence of hazardous materials and biohazards further exacerbates the situation. Attempts to stabilize the structure or remediate hazardous materials would be both potentially dangerous and logistically impractical. While this decision is not taken lightly, considering the significant risks to worker and public safety, we concur that immediate demolition of the building is warranted. "

[Vin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

No one goes to admire 500 Dunsmuir. Nice try. I can't believe you're actually comparing it to the Eiffel Tower.

But by this logic, surely you support removing all the old decrepit houses that are on the heritage register right? Nothing special about SFHs yeah?

Not at this state because Holborn and the City let it, but imagine if it were used as a classy boutique hotel, it could be.

See this:
https://www.lexingtonhotelnyc.com/
This building was built after the Depression in 1929, but shows a similar elegance to our condemned building at 500 Dunsmuir Street.

Also, if this view means nothing to you, then we can skip this pointless debate since you won't be able to appreciate what many others value.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2838834,-..._ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

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.

I think you know that's now what I was saying. Your post made it sound like there was absolutely no value in preserving heritage buildings anywhere and it is clear tourists to many parts of the world don't think so. Many residents of those places don't think so.

if you look at my comment, my preferred solution is they use the facade for the base of a tower to add some interesting street detail.

Originally Posted by chowhou

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.

And yet they didn't clear the Hausman version of the city for a forest of glass towers. The outcry over Tour Montaparnasse brought a halt to any though of doing that. Why do you think that was?

Schloss Neuschwanstein isn't any older than Vancouver yet draws huge amounts of visitors because of its historicist style.
[IMG]schlossn by bcborn, on Flickr[/IMG]
my photo

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

Not at this state because Holborn and the City let it, but imagine if it were used as a classy boutique hotel, it could be.

See this:
https://www.lexingtonhotelnyc.com/

I forgot you were delusional.

Originally Posted by whatnext

I think you know that's now what I was saying. Your post made it sound like there was absolutely no value in preserving heritage buildings anywhere and it is clear tourists to many parts of the world don't think so. Many residents of those places don't think so.

Your post makes it sound like tourists only bother visiting places around the world for the heritage buildings. Hong Kong, Bangkok, Singapore, Tokyo, and Dubai are some of the most visited cities in the world. I assure you, no one is going to those cities for the heritage buildings or the architecture.

And yet they didn't clear the Hausman version of the city for a forest of glass towers. The outcry over Tour Montaparnasse brought a halt to any though of doing that. Why do you think that was?

Haussmann had the privilege of working under an authoritarian government. Once democracy comes around, conservatives tend to vote against scary change.

Schloss Neuschwanstein isn't any older than Vancouver yet draws huge amounts of visitors because of its historicist style.

So, then you clearly have to acknowledge that age or historicity doesn't matter whatsoever. People like to visit nice things. Most heritage buildings in Vancouver are not nice things and are getting in the way of building nice things.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I forgot you were delusional.

So, then you clearly have to acknowledge that age or historicity doesn't matter whatsoever. People like to visit nice things. Most heritage buildings in Vancouver are not nice things and are getting in the way of building nice things.

Basically 500 Dunsmuir was equivalent to the Hotel Vancouver until Holborn bought it. Now it's a teardown but it's the City's fault.

Do I have that correctly?

[Vin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I forgot you were delusional.

You can call me whatever, but looks like you have nothing else better to say. Thanks.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Basically 500 Dunsmuir was equivalent to the Hotel Vancouver until Holborn bought it. Now it's a teardown but it's the City's fault.

Do I have that correctly?

I'm afraid you got that wrong.

Typical of WarrenC12 for twisting facts. Nobody said it was equivalent to Hotel Vancouver, and also no one said it's only the City's fault. Can you actually read?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm afraid you got that wrong.

Typical of WarrenC12 for twisting facts. Nobody said it was equivalent to Hotel Vancouver, and also no one said it's only the City's fault. Can you actually read?

You compared 500 Dunsmuir with the Lexington in NYC, which more closely resembles the Hotel Vancouver.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm afraid you got that wrong.

Typical of WarrenC12 for twisting facts. Nobody said it was equivalent to Hotel Vancouver, and also no one said it's only the City's fault. Can you actually read?

Yeah he's clearly wrong, it was nothing like the Hotel Vancouver. It was far nicer and much more like the Lexington Hotel in NYC!

As another note, isn't it so interesting how some cities with boatloads of historical old buildings like Yerevan, Casablanca, Mexico City, Hanoi, and Kolkata don't seem to see the historical preservationists arguing how wonderful these cities are...

[Vin]

Since we lost this row of beautiful shops and restaurants due to a fire in the SRO above, , this lot has been a blight in Gastown:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2835207,-..._ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

This is also the same in New Westminster for the 1904-built EL Lewis Building, and has been sitting vacant for more than a decade now:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@49.2026446,-..._ep=EgoyMDI0MTIxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I have misgivings about these lots as the structures that replace them are usually rather out-of-place.


I'm glad Europe has the sense and know the urgency to protect their assets now, despite the fact that many were lost due to aerial bombings during WW2, as well as the falsehood of modern developments:
https://www.eib.org/en/essays/new-heritage-deal-for-europe
https://eurocities.eu/resources/inspiring-stories-on-cultural-heritage/

Also in China & Japan:
https://unsouthsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Heritage-Conservation-in-Chinese-Cities.pdf
https://www.gdrc.org/heritage/japan.html