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

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by chowhou

If I was Holburn, I'd be gearing up to find a willing buyer for this property. Play good cop-bad cop. Holburn comes in, takes all the public backlash for doing all the unpopular parts of development, then sells a clean slate to another developer who can develop their own vision on an empty lot.

If anything they just hold onto it for another decade. It's a prime property with a lot of development potential that will only increase in value over time.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

If I was Holburn, I'd be gearing up to find a willing buyer for this property. Play good cop-bad cop. Holburn comes in, takes all the public backlash for doing all the unpopular parts of development, then sells a clean slate to another developer who can develop their own vision on an empty lot.

Anyone know exactly how long Holborn has been sitting on this property and the Bay parkade?

[gaviscon]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

If anything they just hold onto it for another decade. It's a prime property with a lot of development potential that will only increase in value over time.

Unless AI agents begin to replace office jobs and downtown rots even further within the next decade.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Anyone know exactly how long Holborn has been sitting on this property and the Bay parkade?

620-622 Seymour Street 2011
Parkade/Dunsmuir House 2006

They own all the other properties on that block except for the building with the mural on it.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

620-622 Seymour Street 2011
Parkade/Dunsmuir House 2006

They own all the other properties on that block except for the building with the mural on it.

So, closing in on twenty years for Dunsmuir with nothing to show for it. Classic Holborn.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As has been explained to you several times, the City of Vancouver has no control over a developer installing a temporary public park or garden. The BC Assessment Authority determines property classification, in the case of the few temporary parks from Class 6 (Business, other) to Class 8 (Recreation), which reduces the tax rate.

Quite a few vacant sites (Bonnis on Robson for example) haven't bothered to go the temporary park route. It would be more logical for Holborn to request the Dunsmuir site become an extension of the parking lot they own next door, although they might not bother; they've been paying tax on the empty hotel for 12 years - $87,000 in 2024.

If people running the show have no control over what they oversee, then they are nothing but dumb and ineffective. People who are in control should take over, or perhaps we just lack that kind of calibre here?

I just wish the City will punish the owner to the max if it were demolished, so much so that they actually see it worthwhile to retain the heritage facades.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We're arguing over... this? It's a bland building with a pretty cornice - put a new cornice in whatever modern building replaces it, and call it a day.

Yes, and I believe a big part of the City is now arguing over this, incuding yourself, despite your callousness towards this heritage structure.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Yes, and I believe a big part of the City is now arguing over this, incuding yourself, despite your callousness towards this heritage structure.

Touch grass - you, council, and a couple people on the forum =/= "a big part of the city."

Heritage is relative; the Steam Clock four blocks down the street has more heritage than that place ever did, and that thing was built in '77. Keep the hotel, don't keep it, almost anybody who's following the story mostly just wants Holborn to do something with the place.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

I just wish the City will punish the owner to the max if it were demolished, so much so that they actually see it worthwhile to retain the heritage facades.

What would they be punished for? The City has told them to demolish it. The City could 'punish' them if Holborn don't demolish it, by having it removed, and charging them for the work. They'll pay one way or the other for the cost of demolition, but it's not a protected heritage building - there's no Heritage Revitalization Agreement, and only Holborn could initiate that. They seem not to want to do that, given the state they allowed the building to get into

Charging them for the loss of the SRO rooms is a seperate arguement, but it's not clear exactly what the situation is. Holborn seem to think that status lapsed, but the City don't agree. No doubt that'll end in court.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

What would they be punished for? The City has told them to demolish it. The City could 'punish' them if Holborn don't demolish it, by having it removed, and charging them for the work. They'll pay one way or the other for the cost of demolition, but it's not a protected heritage building - there's no Heritage Revitalization Agreement, and only Holborn could initiate that. They seem not to want to do that, given the state they allowed the building to get into

Charging them for the loss of the SRO rooms is a seperate arguement, but it's not clear exactly what the situation is. Holborn seem to think that status lapsed, but the City don't agree. No doubt that'll end in court.

Those are just the technicalities, but an extreme fine can be meted out by the City for the neglect of a beautiful heritage building if they really want to. It does not matter that the building isn't officially "protected", because all parties know that it has been there for more than a century. That would set the precedence for future heritage building owners, including the City, to take good care of the structure. If the City can fine owners for graffiti and other forms of neglect including uncleared snow, then I don't see why they can't do the same for the neglect of old buildings, with fines matching the state of disrepair due to the owner's apathy and irresponsibility. Even better still: the City can bring in a team of engineers and contractors to assess and repair the building, then charge the owner accordingly.

Like I said before, the City is technically at fault as well since they have not been doing much to ensure the constant care for these rare structures around town. There should be a team of heritage building inspectors that periodically do spot-checks on older buildings, and fine landowners who fail to do so. Other than ensuring the longevity of heritage structures, safety is a relevant issue here. Perhaps a lot of heritage buildings would have been saved, and lives recovered if we could prevent some of the fires from happening.

Alas, constantly converting heritage structures to house the homeless by the City and Province will only hasten the pace of their destruction. They need to acknowledge that too.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

Those are just the technicalities, but an extreme fine can be meted out by the City for the neglect of a beautiful heritage building. It does not matter that the building isn't officially "protected", because all parties know that it has been there for more than a century. Like I said before, the City is technically at fault as well since they have not been doing much to ensure such buildings survive. Constantly turning heritage structures to house the homeless by the City and Province will only hasten the pace of their destruction. They need to acknowledge that too.

I'd recommend watching the council video as it will answer all your questions. It was quite interesting / informative to watch with answers from Staff

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Touch grass - you, council, and a couple people on the forum =/= "a big part of the city."

Heritage is relative; the Steam Clock four blocks down the street has more heritage than that place ever did, and that thing was built in '77. Keep the hotel, don't keep it, almost anybody who's following the story mostly just wants Holborn to do something with the place.

Oh of course, if major news agencies here and around the country are reporting about this, I'm sure this is nothing but a microbial issue that only affects you and me.

Global News:

Holborn Properties denies it let Dunsmuir House fall apart to force demolition
https://globalnews.ca/news/10935012/dunsmuir-house-holborn-properties-demolition-debate/

CBC News:

Vancouver council reluctantly votes to demolish 115-year-old building
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c...e-demolition-city-of-vancouver-1.7414532

The Tyee (Victoria)

The End of a Neglected, Dangerous, Once Great Hotel
https://thetyee.ca/News/2024/12/20/Vancouver-Demolish-Dangerous-Downtown-Hotel/

Vancouver is Awesome

Vancouver council unanimous in order to demolish Dunsmuir street building
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local...dunsmuir-street-building-holborn-9982896

Vancouver Sun

As hundreds of derelict buildings sit empty, Vancouver is tasked with solving 'frustrating' problem
https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vancouver-hundreds-vacant-buildings-problems

Reddit

Vancouver Chief Building Officer recommends demolition of building at 500 Dunsmuir Street
https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comme...f_building_officer_recommends/?rdt=35146

MSN

Holborn Properties denies it let Dunsmuir House fall apart to force demolition
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/finance-...-demolition/ar-AA1wBhOT?ocid=recirclinks

The Mainlander

OP-ED | Make Holborn Pay for Loss of the Dunsmuir Hotel
https://themainlander.com/2024/12/23/op-ed-make-holborn-pay-for-loss-of-the-dunsmuir-hotel/

Yup, I'm sure nobody cares!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

- snip -

That's what news sites do: report news. Before you forget, you're the one arguing that 500 Dunsmuir is a cultural marvel that should be preserved at any cost. How many Vancouverites on any of those sites feel the same way?

(crickets)

That's what I thought. Everybody who cares just wants Holborn to redevelop or sell to somebody who will.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Those are just the technicalities, but an extreme fine can be meted out by the City for the neglect of a beautiful heritage building if they really want to. It does not matter that the building isn't officially "protected", because all parties know that it has been there for more than a century.

I'm reasonably certain the City can't invent powers or bu-laws they don't have out of thin air, and then fine owners retrospectively for breaking them.

The 'technicality' is the City has no legal authority to do what you would like happen, and Holborn clearly had no intention of doing anything but let Dunsmuir House fall down on its own. All they had to do to avoid it was buy some tarps in Candaian Tire, and keep checking on them every year.

[chowhou]

Thank god we live in a society where the government can't create laws and retroactively apply them to punish people it doesn't like. People and companies deserve to live and operate in a world where the laws are applied as written down and they can trust the government to adhere to those laws.

In fact, section 11(g) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits persecution in this way. Anyone who wants a world where the government can retroactively persecute is advocating for a scary authoritarian world.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I'm reasonably certain the City can't invent powers or bu-laws they don't have out of thin air, and then fine owners retrospectively for breaking them.

The 'technicality' is the City has no legal authority to do what you would like happen, and Holborn clearly had no intention of doing anything but let Dunsmuir House fall down on its own. All they had to do to avoid it was buy some tarps in Candaian Tire, and keep checking on them every year.

You'll think that after being incorporated as a city for almost 140 years, the City would've learned. Apparently we only have shortsighted City administrators who can't seem to see far. Either that or no one actually cares. What you just described clearly reflects that. No wonder we are losing the little we have left at such an astonishing rate.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Thank god we live in a society where the government can't create laws and retroactively apply them to punish people it doesn't like. People and companies deserve to live and operate in a world where the laws are applied as written down and they can trust the government to adhere to those laws.

In fact, section 11(g) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prohibits persecution in this way. Anyone who wants a world where the government can retroactively persecute is advocating for a scary authoritarian world.

LOL! What hypocrites.

Let's look at this case here where the City is pretty good at fining small businesses:

‘Punitive and ridiculous’: Vancouver business questions dumpster graffiti fine
https://globalnews.ca/news/9136468/vancouver-dumpster-graffiti-fine/

An order to comply followed but McKie said he refused to repaint the dumpster knowing it would be tagged again.

His garbage hauler was then slapped with a $500 ticket for failing to obey the earlier order, a fine McKie said was passed on to him.

“It just seems punitive and ridiculous,” he said.

I suppose we only punish those who are not so rich in this City. Crooks and the wealthy can do whatever they want.
Moral of the story: if you are not filthy rich, you should be a crook here.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

That's what news sites do: report news. Before you forget, you're the one arguing that 500 Dunsmuir is a cultural marvel that should be preserved at any cost. How many Vancouverites on any of those sites feel the same way?

(crickets)

That's what I thought. Everybody who cares just wants Holborn to redevelop or sell to somebody who will.

I knew you are apathetic, but this is bordering being ignorant:

From the Tyee:

‘A grand place’

When the Dunsmuir was first built in 1907 it was the second-largest hotel in the city, rivalled only by the original Hotel Vancouver a few blocks away at Georgia and Granville streets, according to civic historian John Atkin.

According to Atkin’s research, the 168-room hotel was built on land owned by the Dunsmuir family, Victorian-era industrialists who owned the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway and coal mines near Nanaimo as well as other businesses. The Dunsmuirs also built Craigdarroch Castle, an opulent home in Victoria that is now a popular tourist attraction.

Looking through newspapers of the day, it’s clear the Dunsmuir Hotel served many purposes, Atkin says. Gatherings were regularly held in the opulent dining room, and some of the hotel rooms were used as offices for real estate or other businesses.

https://thetyee.ca/Culture/2024/01/17/Downtown-Vancouver-Vacant-Hotel/

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

I knew you are apathetic, but this is bordering being ignorant:

From the Tyee:

Atkin is likely referring to the 1st Vancouver Hotel, which resembles many "frontier" hotels of the late 1800s. The Dunsmuir was likely "grand" from 1909 until about 1916 when it was dwarfed by the 2nd Hotel Vancouver, or just before 1939, when it was converted to basically a rooming house for the rest of its life, the same year the 3rd Vancouver Hotel opened.

It was so out of date that it was gutted in the mid 20th century and there is little grandness left well before Holborn bought it.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Vin

‘A grand place’

When the Dunsmuir was first built in 1907 it was the second-largest hotel in the city, rivalled only by the original Hotel Vancouver a few blocks away at Georgia and Granville streets, according to civic historian John Atkin.

According to Atkin’s research, the 168-room hotel was built on land owned by the Dunsmuir family, Victorian-era industrialists who owned the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway and coal mines near Nanaimo as well as other businesses. The Dunsmuirs also built Craigdarroch Castle, an opulent home in Victoria that is now a popular tourist attraction.

Looking through newspapers of the day, it’s clear the Dunsmuir Hotel served many purposes, Atkin says. Gatherings were regularly held in the opulent dining room, and some of the hotel rooms were used as offices for real estate or other businesses.

When the Boundary Bay Airport was first built in 1941 it was the second-largest airport in the city, rivaled only by the original Vancouver Airport located on Lulu Island, according to me.

According to my research, the two runway airport was built on land originally owned by the Royal Canadian Air Force, the official military air force of Canada which was responsible for training and deploying troops in World War 2. The RCAF also built CFB Comox a military base and civilian airport near Courtenay that is now a popular tourist attraction.

Looking through newspapers of the day, it's clear Boundary Bay Airport served many purposes, I say. Private planes regularly land on its regulation length runways, and some of the hangers are used for helicopters and other aviation business.

---

I hope I've successfully made the case that Boundary Bay Airport must receive a heritage designation and never be expanded or redeveloped!

One funny thing I've noticed is that every historical conservation conservative has come out of the woodwork to say that the Dunsmuir Hotel was a place of great opulence, but I've yet to see a single photograph of the so-called opulence of the inside. Guess it wasn't worth taking any pictures, huh?