Downtown Vancouver Updates

[city-dweller]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

This bull is getting penned in now.



March 10 '16, my pics
Removed pics

Information here

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by city-dweller

Information here

So they're revamping, but maintaining the existing building. I've always found that building rather itty bitty for a CBD Georgia St corner, and had wished they were going for something larger.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Large Cat

Funniest update in a long time poor bull! Thanks mcminsen!!

Interesting. That bull obviously has been there for a while now because I have some vague memories of trying to get up on that thing while intoxicated and it was damn impossible. It looks deceivingly mountable but that polished brass surface or what ever it is just gives zero traction.

Hope the bull comes back..For old memories sake.

[Large Cat]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Interesting. That bull obviously has been there for a while now because I have some vague memories of trying to get up on that thing while intoxicated and it was damn impossible. It looks deceivingly mountable but that polished brass surface or what ever it is just gives zero traction.

Hope the bull comes back..For old memories sake.

They can maintain the heritage frontage by keeping the bull and building everything else new to fit it. The bull in the prominent centre atrium, or right where it is now with the main entrance situated behind it, is sufficient even if the old warehouse facade is gone. As they say, the bull makes the building. The bull must be prominent in the new development, the main architectural statement. Then he can join the Olympic Village sparrows in a partnership of bestial grandeur old and new.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Seems more likely 7-11 keeps it since they are losing their nearby store (?)

I wonder if they'll be able to keep the Tim Hortons kiosks if they rebrand their stores? Would be pretty stupid to lose them...

It's going to be one expensive 7/11 to maintain. Their management won't share Imperial oil's view as advertising costs as theyre much more conservative with land. 7/11 divested themselves of their metro-van gas bars a decade ago (funny how the Canada Way location in burnaby went from 7/11 to Esso and now back to 7/11)

Isn't Couche-Tard keeping the Tims in store in the stores they own in the east, although they are rebranding as Circle K (outside Quebec)

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It's an outstanding example of institutional architecture of the 1950's.

If ever there was an excuse to swing a sledgehammer, it would be that.

[Hourglass]

Originally Posted by s211

If ever there was an excuse to swing a sledgehammer, it would be that.

Actually, Whatnext's idea has merit. Think of London's Bankside Power Station (also 50s institutional architecture) which is now the Tate Modern art museum.

[connect2source]

Originally Posted by whatnext

There's nothing dubious about the heritage value of the Post Office building. It's an outstanding example of institutional architecture of the 1950's. The Art Gallery should have been forced into the existing building, with the gift of the lot and development rights. They then could have built multi-unit rental above which would have provided them with a guaranteed income stream that would be the envy of any art gallery or museum.

1000% in agreement. The massing and scale are outstanding, the "bridge" gives the building balance. The size is perfect for the VAG and perhaps other cultural venues. The condo towers are horribly unrelated to the 50's feel and make little sense. Can't Vancouver just leave well-enough alone and preserve the integrity of this great architecture time piece?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

There are very few examples of 1950s institutional architecture that I think are worth saving, so saying it is an "excellent example" is like telling me it's worth saving a mint-condition, low milage 1988 Chrysler LeBaron. Just send it to the crusher and start from scratch. Personal opinion.

I also feel that a marque art gallery should stand alone. While I'm sure any gallery or museum would love to have the income stream of an apartment building or two, I don't think the architecture nor the uses should be combined.

As you said, your personal opinion. Given that the Art Gallery includes architecture in its mandate, saving heritage should have been a logical choice. Instead they will quixotically keep tilting at the windmill of getting their grandiose but ugly project off the ground in a city not renowned for its philanthropy.

[WarrenC12]

You guys act as if there are no market forces acting here. The CoV and the VAG have nowhere near the money to compete. Nor should they.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by s211

If ever there was an excuse to swing a sledgehammer, it would be that.

Good luck. Start swinging now and maybe you'll make a dent before you die of old age. You could gather all the unemployed people across the country, give them all a hammer and begin a 24/7 orgy of mayhem and destruction, and maybe the building will be gone by the start of the next century.

The place is built like a fortress because it was intended to be a fortress. With the postwar redevelopment of the Pacific Rim, it was envisioned there would be a lot of mail between the far East and Canada (and via Canada to England/Europe), and the Vancouver post office would be used (with its tunnel to the waterfront) as a point to sort all international mail arriving by ship and going on trains to Ontario (and vice versa).

It was seen as a potential target for thieves and a critical building to keep operating in the event of a disaster. Therefore it was built to keep people out and stay standing. It was also built with some of the most advanced and premium materials and techniques available at the time. And careful attention was paid to making it actually look smaller than it really is.

They figure it would take years to take down the building and at least 7000 dumptrucks to take away the material. This isn't just some heritage facade retention handjob where they build a whole new building behind a wall they keep; they are using most of the existing building's structure to build on top of.

The Tate Modern in London is amazing and is one of the largest collections of modern art in the world (I believe every piece is post 1900). There is no reason why a large building of heritage value can't be employed in Vancouver. The large floorplates with existing vehicle ramps between floors lends itself to perfectly to being re-purposed for a museum.

That said, if the museum is so against moving in there, and would instead like to move into a smaller and more expensive building, then I'm glad the building is being preserved with this proposed redevelopment. It's a unique building in pretty much all of western Canada.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Good luck. Start swinging now and maybe you'll make a dent before you die of old age. You could gather all the unemployed people across the country, give them all a hammer and begin a 24/7 orgy of mayhem and destruction, and maybe the building will be gone by the start of the next century.

The place is built like a fortress because it was intended to be a fortress. With the postwar redevelopment of the Pacific Rim, it was envisioned there would be a lot of mail between the far East and Canada (and via Canada to England/Europe), and the Vancouver post office would be used (with its tunnel to the waterfront) as a point to sort all international mail arriving by ship and going on trains to Ontario (and vice versa).

It was seen as a potential target for thieves and a critical building to keep operating in the event of a disaster. Therefore it was built to keep people out and stay standing. It was also built with some of the most advanced and premium materials and techniques available at the time. And careful attention was paid to making it actually look smaller than it really is.

They figure it would take years to take down the building and at least 7000 dumptrucks to take away the material.

Despite all that, the architects and developers have stated that demolishing the existing building and starting fresh would be easier and more economical:

"Demolishing and starting from scratch is much easier to do,” said Mark Thompson, another architect and partner at MCM.

"The complexities behind this parking is representative of all the challenges we face in repurposing this building,” said Tony Astles, the Executive Vice-President of Bentall Kennedy. “Anything we put into this project, the present conditions requires parking… This will be parking even at a reduced level [below City mandated quotas]...”

“If we started with a greenfield site, in theory we can dig as deep as we want to accommodate parking whereas in this [existing] structure we need to find creative and very complicated ways to introduce interstitial floors, between floors, to accommodate additional parking,” said Astles. “The greenfield site became more practical and economic than retention of the existing building.”

Source: http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2016/03/canada-post-redevelopment-vancouver/

[LeftCoaster]

Not an update but a general question. I was back last week and noticed the Hotel Vancouver roof was not lit up at all. Has this been the case for a while? Anyone know why it is not lit up like it used to be? I remember growing up in Van it was always either floodlit or lit with white lights like the provincial legislature in Victoria.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Not an update but a general question. I was back last week and noticed the Hotel Vancouver roof was not lit up at all. Has this been the case for a while? Anyone know why it is not lit up like it used to be? I remember growing up in Van it was always either floodlit or lit with white lights like the provincial legislature in Victoria.

I'm not out and about much after dark but I think it's been quite a while since either the flood lights or white lights have been on. For most of last year there were exterior repairs/restoration going on. I missed the white lights this past Christmas. The Hotel Vancouver is just one of a number of buildings that have had their roof lights off for a while. I hope it's not a trend in order to reduce "light pollution".



Nov.22 '15, my pic



Dec.7 '15, my pic

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Not an update but a general question. I was back last week and noticed the Hotel Vancouver roof was not lit up at all. Has this been the case for a while? Anyone know why it is not lit up like it used to be? I remember growing up in Van it was always either floodlit or lit with white lights like the provincial legislature in Victoria.

The lights have been turned off since sometime in 2014. I don't know why. Maybe it has something to do with those birds.

[trofirhen]

Thanks for the great pics, mcminsen. Interesting to see the slow but inexorable advance of the VAG Georgia St plaza. It'll be even nicer once the get that fountain out of there.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The lights have been turned off since sometime in 2014. I don't know why. Maybe it has something to do with those birds.

I'm wondering if building lighting features create worse pollution than lights used at night for Container Ports, airport runways, street lights, or even the mostly fluorescent lights left on in office towers after dark. I mean, realistically, would a sign on top a building or a strip of LED light, or building top floodlights, confined to downtown Vancouver, cause worse disorientation to the navigational abilities of birds than what's already out there throughout the Lower Mainland?

Hope it's not one of those "green-wash" moves.....

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

I'm wondering if building lighting features create worse pollution than lights used at night ............
Hope it's not one of those "green-wash" moves.....

What is a "green-wash," please?

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Not an update but a general question. I was back last week and noticed the Hotel Vancouver roof was not lit up at all. Has this been the case for a while? Anyone know why it is not lit up like it used to be? I remember growing up in Van it was always either floodlit or lit with white lights like the provincial legislature in Victoria.

So I just emailed them asking about this and here is their response:


Thank you for your interest and inquiry of this beautiful landmark.

As you may or may not be aware we have been undergoing a major 10 million dollar exterior renovation of our heritage building for the last 2 years (in addition to our interior renovations). This has prevented us from lighting our roof, although it has been high on our list of things to do. These renovations have been taking a lot longer than expected due to the age of our building. Unfortunately we cannot give you a due date of the completion at this time.

Warmest regards,

David Reid
Concierge

[LeftCoaster]

Ahh that's great news, thanks for doing my dirty work for me!

Looking forward to them turning the lights back on.