Downtown Vancouver Updates

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Jebby

Maybe to keep humidity out?

I thought it was to protect it from people throwing rocks at them.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by 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.

If we're so stupid then add a bylaw restricting the demolition of any new building for 200-years then everyone will be happy.

[entheosfog]

Originally Posted by 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.

People did care for the Birks and tried to save it, even the mayor was sympathetic to the cause and petitioned the provincial government for an amendment to the Vancouver Charter to allow it to protect heritage buildings. So just because it was torn doesn't mean people didn't care for it. There was nothing that could be done at the time. But times have changed and that's why the comparison between the two is apples to oranges. Just because the two buildings may have been similar in age when the threat of demolition came up, doesn't automatically make it a fair comparison. It's not as black and white as that.

We have a heritage register today, thanks to the demolition of the Birks, the only good thing to come of that, and the Hotel Vancouver and Sun Tower both are listed on it so good luck tearing those buildings down. The 2nd Hotel Vancouver was far from mundane and it was still torn down. I'd challenge anyone who calls/called the Birks mundane in the Vancouver context (if it was New York City, then oh my god yes!) but in Vancouver, it was a one of a kind.

[Marshal]

Comparing the two situations/buildings is throwing everyone off track. For me, the Landmark is more unique than people are giving it credit for. As a type, it has much more than just its height going for it. If it goes I will miss it - though that might just be because of its actual landmark quality over a relatively long duration. Its a marker for the first 'modern' skyline of the West End.

Would I protest, no. I generally don't get excited about the drive to save all the middle ground heritage. I care more about retaining good buildings and good architecture (not quite the same thing) regardless of age or type/kind.

A big issue with this building is not aesthetic, but has to do with function. The small floor plate restricts its use options. Even as a hotel (anyone who has been inside the rooms will understand) it is tight and no longer configurable to what hoteliers would like in today's market. So, simply on economic feasibility, its days may be numbered.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

If we're so stupid then add a bylaw restricting the demolition of any new building for 200-years then everyone will be happy.

I think that less than 1% of buildings built in the last 50 years will last 200 years. They just aren't built to last.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I think that less than 1% of buildings built in the last 50 years will last 200 years. They just aren't built to last.

So true .... imagine the scenario when The Big One (earthquake) hits ...

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I thought it was to protect it from people throwing rocks at them.

Right but why are they not on churches in the east like montreal ottawa?

Is it just vancouver that have some sort of problem with people throwing rocks at churches? Lol

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

So true .... imagine the scenario when The Big One (earthquake) hits ...

I totally disagree. Burildings built now are solid reinforced concrete builsings. That will last. It's the shitty cheap envelope that won't.

[Prometheus]

While we are on the topic of Vancouver's lost architectural treasures, in case anyone was curious what the interior of the Second Hotel Vancouver looked like, here is an image depicting part of the main lobby as it looked in 1913. It's so sad that we don't have this magnificent space (and many other magnificent spaces) anymore:

[Marshal]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

I totally disagree. Burildings built now are solid reinforced concrete builsings. That will last. It's the shitty cheap envelope that won't.

Yes, these structures will last for as long as the elements are kept out (and so the cheap envelope is key) and away from the structure.

In fact, proper concrete continues to strengthen over time. Less and less so, but nonetheless, the chemical bonds continue to extend themselves over a very large duration in time. The point is not that this strengthening is of any significance, but that this kind of structure is not weakening with age.

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

While we are on the topic of Vancouver's lost architectural treasures, in case anyone was curious what the interior of the Second Hotel Vancouver looked like, here is an image depicting part of the main lobby as it looked in 1913. It's so sad that we don't have this magnificent space (and many other magnificent spaces) anymore:

I have only four words: Bison and Moose Gargoyles.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

here is an image depicting part of the main lobby as it looked in 1913.

that is the same one as this i believe. right?

source

[Vin]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

Right but why are they not on churches in the east like montreal ottawa?

Is it just vancouver that have some sort of problem with people throwing rocks at churches? Lol

Right on! From the get-go, in a pioneering western town this seems to be the phenomenon. Just look at old western shows where cowboys would shoot up their own town and break things after having drunken brawls in bars/saloons.

Protecting heritage comes naturally to people who live long enough in a certain city to possess a culture to appreciate or love it. It's also how people are educated about the value of public property. Without amalgamation and keeping metropolitan cities separate, plus the fact that there are so many new comers in this region, I feel that many Lower Mainlanders have no love or respect for what's in the City of Vancouver. Just look at the Canucks riot: not many cities in the world can "boast" of its own residents having such destructive mentalities. Pity our small retail businesses that frequently have their store-front glass windows or doors smashed in. Wood hoarding must be a pretty lucrative business here.

Oh by the way, our churches should use better quality plexi-glass that don't look so plastic, and the fact that it warps makes it look bad. Again, perhaps we don't have a good system or procedure on how to enhance heritage buildings.

[jollyburger]

Pacific Centre's Xmas tree. No white picket fence.



https://twitter.com/CFPacificCentre

And there's another light ball that you can walk through in front of 725 Granville.



https://www.instagram.com/p/BM-VAnlAzeJ/

[BobLoblawsLawBlog]

An appropriate time to decorate for Christmas.

[mcminsen]

March 10 ’16, my pic




Look who's back.



Nov.20 '16 my pics

[officedweller]

Back from vacation...

Too bad they didn't consider how the tower would disappear / blend into the gold of the office block from this angle.

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

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.

It was supposed to be redeveloped - with an Arthur Erickson design incorporating the church into the ground floor (accessed by a sunken plaza).
Instead, the density was transferred to Park Place to the north.


http://arthur-erickson-officialblog.tumblr.com/post/80202145645/arthurs-vision-for-cathedral-place

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by mcminsen

March 10 ’16, my pic

Thanks! While it's finally done I'm really not impressed with the renovation, does anyone else get a 90's vibe from the steel awnings and window frames?

The new light grey materials clash with the original yellowish concrete, before this renovation i was actually hoping this building would be redeveloped. How much taller could a building go on this site?

[retro_orange]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Back from vacation...

Too bad they didn't consider how the tower would disappear / blend into the gold of the office block from this angle.

It was supposed to be redeveloped - with an Arthur Erickson design incorporating the church into the ground floor (accessed by a sunken plaza).
Instead, the density was transferred to Park Place to the north.


http://arthur-erickson-officialblog.tumblr.com/post/80202145645/arthurs-vision-for-cathedral-place

I haven't really weighed in on this one, the Erickson building is impressive looking, i wish it was where Park Place is now. I'm glad the church stayed too.

While the steel roof was not part of the original design, having a copper, tin or other sheet metal roof was quite common in the 1880's and 90's as a result of the industrial revolution and was often found on ornate Queen Anne style buildings. It was invented almost 200 years ago now.

[mcminsen]

A few more pics of the site at 1688 Davie (just west of London Drugs).



Nov.19 '16, my pics