Downtown Vancouver Updates

[Metro-One]

Loving the irony on this page.

Again, exact same comments were probably said for the Birks building

Also, that infill is pretty uninspired. The dome is more interesting than that.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by MIPS

I'm hearing rumors that plans for redevelopment of the Pacific Centre dome has been approved.



....well, there goes another landmark.

Well sounds like it might start next year since MK Illumination signage is up which indicates some kind of Christmas lighting is going to be outside of the rotunda.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Loving the irony on this page.

Again, exact same comments were probably said for the Birks building

Also, that infill is pretty uninspired. The dome is more interesting than that.

You keep spouting off on how the building was torn down for aesthetic reasons but you have yet to mention one historical fact to back it up.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

You keep spouting off on how the building was torn down for aesthetic reasons but you have yet to mention one historical fact to back it up.

I never once said it was directly torn down for aesthetic reasons. I stated that the general feeling for the structure at the time was likely the same as that shown for the Landmark Tower now.

How is this concept so hard for you people to grasp?

At that time it was generally the same age as the Landmark is now and would have been seen in the same general light: "Its an old outdated design / We have many similar structures / etc..."

I am not saying that they tore it down because they thought it was as ugly, but because in the context of the time it was generally not seen as special.

Or do you guys really believe that the people who allowed it to be torn down thought, "Wow, the Birks building is a unique and beautiful structure representing a fantastic form of architecture... well, let's take it down!"

No, they thought the same sentiments being shown on this thread towards the Landmark Tower.

It still makes me laugh how you can't figure this pattern of history repeating itself out.

[logan5]

Doesn't seem that the Birks Building was viewed as mundane the way you think it was. The demolition of the Birks Building sparked a lot of protests. Something I doubt we'll see with the mundane landmark building.

Well-organized, sustained protests greeted the proposed demolition, including the splendid mock funeral captured in the photographs below. Although the municipal government of Mayor Art Phillips was sympathetic to the campaign, it had no ability to halt the development and petitioned the provincial government of Premier Dave Barrett for an amendment to the Vancouver Charter to allow it to protect heritage buildings. The upshot was a piece of legislation, overturned in 1978 by the next provincial government, that allowed the city to designate heritage buildings without offering any compensation to the owners. Twenty-one buildings, the core of Vancouver's historic legacy including the old Post Office, the Orpheum Theatre, Hudson's Bay Company, and the CPR Station, were designated by Vancouver City Council in 1974; council designated another 30, including the Hotel Vancouver and the Marine Building, by the end of 1976. So, it could be said, the outrage over the loss of the Birks Building triggered the modern era, where heritage buildings are managed and adapted to new uses (formalized as city policy in 1986), leading to the preservation of many of them.

http://www.michaelkluckner.com/bciw1birks.html

[Metro-One]

Well, I am against tearing down the Landmark Tower, and there were many other posters who expressed similar concern when the news broke.

My point still stands, obviously enough people didn't care for the Birks building to save it

I am sure today tearing down the Hotel Vancouver or the Sun Tower would be impossible, so at the time Burks must have been mundane enough.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I never once said it was directly torn down for aesthetic reasons. I stated that the general feeling for the structure at the time was likely the same as that shown for the Landmark Tower now.

How is this concept so hard for you people to grasp?

At that time it was generally the same age as the Landmark is now and would have been seen in the same general light: "Its an old outdated design / We have many similar structures / etc..."

I am not saying that they tore it down because they thought it was as ugly, but because in the context of the time it was generally not seen as special.

Or do you guys really believe that the people who allowed it to be torn down thought, "Wow, the Birks building is a unique and beautiful structure representing a fantastic form of architecture... well, let's take it down!"

No, they thought the same sentiments being shown on this thread towards the Landmark Tower.

It still makes me laugh how you can't figure this pattern of history repeating itself out.

don't worry, i get it! you aren't alone. haha.

i to find it funny how people here don't realize it. the Briks building wasn't all that special either since a lot of that architecture was around. (ornate old buildings). it wasn't until years later when many of them were torn down for the same reasons, that they realized "crap, we made a mistake." sure, the Landmark isn't anything special, but it does show a time in history when prefab buildings, tall buildings, and revolving restaurants were an "it thing." the same people on here who want the Landmark gone, are the same people complaining about all the similar glass towers. the Landmark is taller, different, and visible whereas any replacement is a short, invisible, copy-cat of all the others we have.

[mcminsen]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

1045 Haro Street is up for sale. This will be a pretty big one in the next couple years. Height will be restricted somewhat due to shawdowing issues on Robson Street, but I'm sure whatever gets built will be a big improvement. Especially with the revolving door of retail uses on the corner on Thurlow.

Here are some pics I took a couple of days ago. The small apartment building in the second last pic is not part of the land assembly but I thought I would show it for context.



Nov.14 '16, my pics

[mcminsen]

A few more pics of Christchurch Cathedral.



Nov.14 '16, my pics

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

don't worry, i get it! you aren't alone. haha.

i to find it funny how people here don't realize it. the Briks building wasn't all that special either since a lot of that architecture was around. (ornate old buildings). it wasn't until years later when many of them were torn down for the same reasons, that they realized "crap, we made a mistake." sure, the Landmark isn't anything special, but it does show a time in history when prefab buildings, tall buildings, and revolving restaurants were an "it thing." the same people on here who want the Landmark gone, are the same people complaining about all the similar glass towers. the Landmark is taller, different, and visible whereas any replacement is a short, invisible, copy-cat of all the others we have.

Glad I am not the only one that can see the ironic pattern.

[osirisboy]

Why does the church cover up those huge stainless windows with plexiglass? I think I've seen other churches do it here too. It's ashame. It must be a vancouver thing because i don't remember churches back east doing this

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Why does the church cover up those huge stainless windows with plexiglass? I think I've seen other churches do it here too. It's ashame. It must be a vancouver thing because i don't remember churches back east doing this

This could be to minimize the risk of breakage from vandalism, being in a downtown location. But you're right, I'd prefer that it not be there,
although the light patterns are really designed for people to view from the inside, at times of worship, or other events when the church is open to the public.
In spite of the negative criticism it gets from being too small and understated, I love this church. It makes me think of "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard" by Thomas Gray.

[truenorth44]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

And finally, for a city where everyone complains lacks variety and has too many glass condos, so ironic to see the championing of the destruction of a major non glass condo tower for more glass condo towers.

THIS!! So much this! I WANT to keep some of the ugly, unique buildings! Especially when they are so different than anything else around. The Landmark is also an exclamation point in the middle of a bunch of commas and periods, and provides relief from the norm. A city needs variety to be interesting - even a city full of iconic buildings needs to have something to contrast them.

That said, I don't think the Landmark is so boring.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i to find it funny how people here don't realize it. the Briks building wasn't all that special either since a lot of that architecture was around. (ornate old buildings).

How many other ornate commercial buildings the size of the Birks building did Vancouver have at the time? I doubt more than two dozen in total.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Why does the church cover up those huge stainless windows with plexiglass? I think I've seen other churches do it here too. It's ashame. It must be a vancouver thing because i don't remember churches back east doing this

Maybe to keep humidity out?

[Vantage]

There is now hoarding up at the site of the 23 storey rental building at 1688 Davie.

2016-11-16

I also got a picture of the demolition of the parking lot from the alley.

2016-11-16

[osirisboy]

That's great to see that weird little parkade go! Those stairs going down from davie always looked sketchy.

Has there been any action on westbank's site on pendrell at denman?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Maybe to keep humidity out?

or perhaps keep the heat in?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

or perhaps keep the heat in?

Or both.

[jlousa]

Posted a new proposal to cheer people up.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=225863