Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Vin]

Agreed. Should have made faux-timber PVC shingles to go on top of this metal roof.

https://www.pinterest.com/jeremyrmw/colour-ideas/

[Jebby]

It will probably look better once it ages a bit.

It sticks out way too much right now.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Vin

Agreed. Should have made faux-timber PVC shingles to go on top of this metal roof.

https://www.pinterest.com/jeremyrmw/colour-ideas/

Originally Posted by Jebby

It will probably look better once it ages a bit.

It sticks out way too much right now.

Yes, faux shingles would have been a real plus, but nevertheless, we are lucky to have this modest peaceful haven smack downtown. Such a great counterpoint!
At one point, they were going to tear it down for some kind of crystal palace thing, I believe, with prisms for (blocked off) sunlight to strike it. Glad that never went through !!

[s211]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

Here's a better look at the new roof on Christchurch Cathedral now that the scaffolding is coming down.



Nov.9 '16, my pics

How can they get away with that on what is likely a heritage-protected structure? Have you ever tried to change door knobs on a heritage building? You might as well tell the city you plan to burn the building down, they get their knickers so bunched up.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

It looks really, odd. Like the roof is a few inches higher than it should be.

[Graham_Yvr]

Originally Posted by s211

How can they get away with that on what is likely a heritage-protected structure? Have you ever tried to change door knobs on a heritage building? You might as well tell the city you plan to burn the building down, they get their knickers so bunched up.

Aside from the colour, the 'style' of the roof matches the Hotel Vancouver and Cathedral Place. It makes sense to me.

[BodomReaper]

Unpopular opinion: I wish the church would have been redeveloped. It's nothing special architecturally, and there are two similar churches a few blocks south on Burrard. It deadens what should be one of the most intensely urban intersections in the city.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Unpopular opinion: I wish the church would have been redeveloped. It's nothing special architecturally, and there are two similar churches a few blocks south on Burrard. It deadens what should be one of the most intensely urban intersections in the city.

I agree. It's such a regular looking church. It's just not special enough to sit in what should be the flagship intersection of Vancouver. It could be our Bay & King, but not with the church there.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by BodomReaper

Unpopular opinion: I wish the church would have been redeveloped. It's nothing special architecturally, and there are two similar churches a few blocks south on Burrard. It deadens what should be one of the most intensely urban intersections in the city.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree. It's such a regular looking church. It's just not special enough to sit in what should be the flagship intersection of Vancouver. It could be our Bay & King, but not with the church there.

Sorry. Disagree totally. I think it provides a gentle counterpoint to what is otherwise a high rise district. Furthermore, in some years time, there will be a MAJOR high rise kitty-corner.
In the long haul, this will lend character to that node of downtown, and make it stand out from what would just be another modern North American city center.

[red-paladin]

I think that having large scale cultural facilities like museums, theatres, churches, and libraries not only bring architectural variety and pedestrian traffic to downtowns, but they are at the very heart of urbanism. The best cities in the world are great because their densities are leveraged to enable cultural activity. Imagine going to Europe and remarking 'That old religious/cultural building on the corner should be replaced with a 200m office tower with an A&W and nail shop at the base'

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think that having large scale cultural facilities like museums, theatres, churches, and libraries not only bring architectural variety and pedestrian traffic to downtowns, but they are at the very heart of urbanism. The best cities in the world are great because their densities are leveraged to enable cultural activity. Imagine going to Europe and remarking 'That old religious/cultural building on the corner should be replaced with a 200m office tower with an A&W and nail shop at the base'

Thank you, Red. Otherwise stated, that's my point of view exactly

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

I think that having large scale cultural facilities like museums, theatres, churches, and libraries not only bring architectural variety and pedestrian traffic to downtowns, but they are at the very heart of urbanism. The best cities in the world are great because their densities are leveraged to enable cultural activity. Imagine going to Europe and remarking 'That old religious/cultural building on the corner should be replaced with a 200m office tower with an A&W and nail shop at the base'

I agree with you, and if that church looked like Notre Dame in Montreal, I would be all for it. But the existing one just looks like any other church. Just seems like an under utilization of the space there.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I agree with you, and if that church looked like Notre Dame in Montreal, I would be all for it. But the existing one just looks like any other church. Just seems like an under utilization of the space there.

It's what we've got. It's our history. It reflects that Vancouver was not a seat of power or wealth at the time of its construction, but a modest, authentic place of worship was built and expected to be maintained in perpetuity.

At some point someone must have lusted after the Montreal Notre Dame site and opined that "if that church look like Notre Dam in Paris, I would be all for it" before advocating its destruction.

I do agree that the metal roofing system cheapens the building. With that said, is it not copper? Because that would look great in time.

Slate tile would have been a nice choice, too, and if there were an appetite to make a subtle but significant statement of being a place of worship rooted in today and looking to the future, Tesla/SolarCity's Solar Slate Tiles could have been phenomenal.

[red-paladin]

Presumably the roof is a result of the budget available. I don't think the Anglican church in Canada has very much resources available at moment due to consistently declining membership, they probably went with the most economical choice in an already very expensive project?

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Presumably the roof is a result of the budget available. I don't think the Anglican church in Canada has very much resources available at moment due to consistently declining membership, they probably went with the most economical choice in an already very expensive project?

$ What you said is probably very true. And it doesn't really matter, anyway. Time will mellow it, and the new roof chimes with Cathedral Place next door, as well as the Hotel roof.
Additionally, it is evident that, it is in fact an older building, just looking at the stonework. Like many older buildings, an observer would think that the roof needed repair anyway.
And yes it's not St. Patrick's Cathedral on 5th Ave in NYC, nor Notre Dame either in Montreal or Paris, but its part of Vancouver's history, as Red mentioned, and reflects our roots.
Most importantly, whether you're a believer or not, it brings an element of that "peace of God that passes all understanding"{Phil.4:7} to the frenetic, modern, self-pursuing downtown.

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

$Most importantly, whether you're a believer or not, it brings an element of that "peace of God that passes all understanding"{Phil.4:7} to the frenetic, modern, self-pursuing downtown.

It reminds me of this Disney animation from 1952 based on a Virginia Burton story called "Little House".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y881yjtFluQ

[s211]

Originally Posted by Graham_Yvr

Aside from the colour, the 'style' of the roof matches the Hotel Vancouver and Cathedral Place. It makes sense to me.

But whenever you make any repairs / amendments to a heritage-designated structure, as far as I know you have to ape what was there before. I have a friend with a house in Kerrisdale that had a heck of a time just replacing a front gate, and I know of a church that had to build a special blend-in enclosure when they wanted to install a projector.

In that vein, I'm surprised a very visible exterior treatment of a designated structure looks very little like it did before.

[SpongeG]

its a non significant church and being a church if they get too extravagant the public would be like there goes a church again spending their wealth on themselves instead of the poor

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

its a non significant church and being a church if they get too extravagant the public would be like there goes a church again spending their wealth on themselves instead of the poor

Excuse me, SpongeG, but I think you're splittinng hairs on this. First, I don't think it's "non significant;" quite the contrary. Second, better to repair it than wait until the roof caves in.

[Changing City]

The new roof is zinc - about as expensive as copper and much more expensive than shakes or other similar alternatives. It should last at least three times longer than the previous roof (installed in 1980) which had to be removed carefully due to the asbestos content. There was also a problem with the dust in the roof, that had high lead levels and cost an additional million dollars to remove safely. The new roof structure incorporates steelwork to improve the seismic performance, and is now anchored into the walls. The plans were shown the Vancouver Heritage Commission in 2014, who unanimously supported the choice of materials.