CF Pacific Centre Developments

[officedweller]

The demolition of the old Hotel Vancouver was apparently due to a restrictive covenant against hotel use or absent a covenant, just the desire of the then hotel operator (CP or JV of CP and CN or CN's predecessor) to prevent a competitor from opening up. (i.e. like how old Safeway-owned sites have restrictive covenants preventing future supermarket use).

Originally Posted by trofirhen

That's an interesting statement. Could I ask you why that is?

Just a thought due to the costs of maintaining security - due to protests, the homeless, vandalism, etc.

[officedweller]

Pic by me today.

Georgia looks like its concrete base is in place.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Changing City

True - but a bit misleading.. The Second Hotel Vancouver was replaced by a surface parking lot for decades. Here it is in a late 1960s Vancouver Archives image. [larger image here]. The site had been vacant for 20 years - [1949 image here]. So the idea for the Pacific Centre came quite a bit later - the second hotel was torn down because the newer Hotel Vancouver was more than enough hotel for the modest city of the day, and after it had been used as temporary housing for the homeless, there wasn't any obvious use for it.

That's very lousy reasoning not to protect a heritage structure, which didn't look modest at all. Also, it wasn't like Vancouver had many heritage buildings to begin with, and so letting it come down was indeed an atrocity. Maybe that's why Vancouver has become a provincial town it is today, because nobody ever thinks big, and whatever little we have, we just can't wait to get rid of them. Question for you: why build the third hotel when there is so little demand for room space?

Originally Posted by officedweller

The demolition of the old Hotel Vancouver was apparently due to a restrictive covenant against hotel use or absent a covenant, just the desire of the then hotel operator (CP or JV of CP and CN or CN's predecessor) to prevent a competitor from opening up. (i.e. like how old Safeway-owned sites have restrictive covenants preventing future supermarket use).



Just a thought due to the costs of maintaining security - due to protests, the homeless, vandalism, etc.

Surely the restrictive covenant was conceived and supported by shortsighted people? How archaic.


And now the demolition of the glass dome is even more shortsighted: to replace it with something even uglier and take away a very welcoming entance to the mall.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Vin

That's very lousy reasoning not to protect a heritage structure, which didn't look modest at all. Also, it wasn't like Vancouver had many heritage buildings to begin with, and so letting it come down was indeed an atrocity. Maybe that's why Vancouver has become a provincial town it is today, because nobody ever thinks big, and whatever little we have, we just can't wait to get rid of them.

The 2nd hotel existed for 33 years and no one wanted it. Vancouver wasn't really in the "save heritage buildings and make other people pay for it" mood back in 1949 dealing with a decade's old vacant building. It was eventually replaced by a mall...

Not sure if a post-modern glass dome could receive status simply as being the only design in town. Receiving a designation via by-law from the City without owner consent regularly entails that structure tells the city's lived and seen heritage. Not sure what the "newest" heritage designated and legally protected structure in the city is.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

That's very lousy reasoning not to protect a heritage structure, which didn't look modest at all. Also, it wasn't like Vancouver had many heritage buildings to begin with, and so letting it come down was indeed an atrocity. Maybe that's why Vancouver has become a provincial town it is today, because nobody ever thinks big, and whatever little we have, we just can't wait to get rid of them. Question for you: why build the third hotel when there is so little demand for room space?

The second Hotel Vancouver wasn't a heritage building when it was demolished. It wasn't even very old. The part you are referencing was built by the Canadian Pacific Railway; opened in 1916, and closed in 1939. It was demolished in 1949.

The third Hotel Vancouver was started in 1928 by the Canadian Northern Railway, and was part of the deal that allowed that railway to build a station on the filled-in False Creek. It didn't open until 1939. In between there was a huge recession. By the time it was completed neither hotel was really viable - especially once the war started. CN and CP jointly ran the newer hotel, (the one standing today), and apart from using the slightly older building as a barracks, and to house homeless returning soldiers from the war, no further use was found for it.

Officedweller might be right about a restrictive covenant to prevent hotel use, although I've not seen that stated anywhere but on SSP. A 1948 newspaper article seems to contradict that statement: the site was bought by T Eaton and Co to build a modern departmental store. Pressed by the Board of Trade of the day to resell it, or remodel it as a hotel again, Eaton's said "no one is interested in its purchase". It seems unlikely that any hotel operator would have wanted to compete with the newer Hotel Vancouver and the equally new Hotel Georgia across the street, opened in 1932. Eaton's then took 20 years to get round to opening their new store - designed by Cesar Pelli at Victor Gruen & Co, considered at the time the best retail architects for malls in North America.

[officedweller]

Just did a Google search and the prevention of competition may have been the agreement between CP and CN
to operate the 3rd Hotel Vancouver jointly, though I thought I read about not allowing another hotel on the site.
But then again, it may not have been a restrictive covenant on title, as I also recall seeing old plans for the Eaton's store that included a hotel on the roof.

Other articles mention poor construction and deterioration.

EDIT: Found it - in Donald Luxton's heritage review of the Eaton's Building for the redevelopment application.
The original IM Pei design for Eaton's (before Cesar Pelli reworked it) included a rooftop hotel,
so there wouldn't have been a restrictive covenant registered on title (at least for those parcels under the proposed hotel).


https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/commi...-granville.pdf

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Just did a Google search and the prevention of competition may have been the agreement between CP and CN
to operate the 3rd Hotel Vancouver jointly, though I thought I read about not allowing another hotel on the site. But then again, it may not have been a restrictive covenant on title, as I also recall seeing old plans for the Eaton's store that included a hotel on the roof.

Other articles mention poor construction and deterioration.

EDIT: Found it - in Donald Luxton's heritage review of the Eaton's Building for the redevelopment application. The original IM Pei design for Eaton's (before Cesar Pelli reworked it) included a rooftop hotel, so there wouldn't have been a restrictive covenant registered on title (at least for those parcels under the proposed hotel).

Thanks for digging that out and confirming that the restrictive covenant didn't exist. The times were hard, and one over-sized (for the time) fancy hotel was all the local economy could handle. The fact that bitter rivals CN and CP entered into a joint management deal shows how tough things were.

The old hotel may not have been well built - or at least well maintained. A demolition worker fell to his death in 1949 when a canopy collapsed - although the inquest fond he was supposed to be demolishing the elevator shaft, and shouldn't have been near the canopy. The gargoyles from the hotel were supposedly preserved and given to the Park Board to exhibit in Stanley Park. I don't think they survived.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Thanks for digging that out and confirming that the restrictive covenant didn't exist. The times were hard, and one over-sized (for the time) fancy hotel was all the local economy could handle. The fact that bitter rivals CN and CP entered into a joint management deal shows how tough things were.

The old hotel may not have been well built - or at least well maintained. A demolition worker fell to his death in 1949 when a canopy collapsed - although the inquest fond he was supposed to be demolishing the elevator shaft, and shouldn't have been near the canopy. The gargoyles from the hotel were supposedly preserved and given to the Park Board to exhibit in Stanley Park. I don't think they survived.

Illustrated Vancouver did some research on it and it seems they were probably destroyed. A few went to the Vancouver Archives but they were in bad shape and not accepted.

https://illustratedvancouver.ca/post...l-vancouver-ii

[officedweller]

I wonder if they were stone or terra cotta?

EDIT: The newspaper article says they were stone (which would be crazy heavy cantilevered from the facade like that).

DOUBLE EDIT: The blog post says they were terracotta, which makes more sense (lighter).

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I wonder if they were stone or terra cotta?

EDIT: The newspaper article says they were stone (which would be crazy heavy cantilevered from the facade like that).

DOUBLE EDIT: The blog post says they were terracotta, which makes more sense (lighter).

people romanticize this building a lot, because we look at photos which are available. ones taken when brand new, and during construction. i would be very curious to know what this building looked like before being torn down. i have a feeling the place was a dump based on little tidbits found online; and there really isn't much on this building. don't get me wrong, i think this building, when new, was beautiful and it is a shame we lost it. there are more than a few buildings that i wish still existed. but what happens is people get lost in the fact that this building was abandoned for a fair amount of time. and as mentioned before, it was a fairly new building still when torn down.

either way, i do think it sucks this building was torn down, but i do see why it happened and do not think it was because we didn't care about history, in this specific case. the Birks building is a whole other story.

though, back on topic. anyone who thinks this replacement for the dome is ugly, clearly is in the minority considering who the architects are and who the client is. these stores are always built with very high quality materials and design in a great way.

[jollyburger]

It might have been interesting for the heritage and massing of the building. But it seems a bit of a jumbled mish mash of blocks especially when people compare this to the Empress or the Palace Hotel in San Francisco.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Just did a Google search and the prevention of competition may have been the agreement between CP and CN
to operate the 3rd Hotel Vancouver jointly, though I thought I read about not allowing another hotel on the site.
But then again, it may not have been a restrictive covenant on title, as I also recall seeing old plans for the Eaton's store that included a hotel on the roof.

Other articles mention poor construction and deterioration.

EDIT: Found it - in Donald Luxton's heritage review of the Eaton's Building for the redevelopment application.
The original IM Pei design for Eaton's (before Cesar Pelli reworked it) included a rooftop hotel,
so there wouldn't have been a restrictive covenant registered on title (at least for those parcels under the proposed hotel).


https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/commi...-granville.pdf

From the rendering, it looks to me more like everyone was in a hurry to make this Canadian city look more American, as in USA. As a result, colonial heritage structures were summarily torn down. Again, decision makers, including City oversee-ers, were terribly short-sighted individuals.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Illustrated Vancouver did some research on it and it seems they were probably destroyed. A few went to the Vancouver Archives but they were in bad shape and not accepted.
https://illustratedvancouver.ca/post...l-vancouver-ii

"In a bad shape". How come this phrase sounds so familiar? Ah, but of course, we have a tendency of neglecting older structures and let them slide into a state of disrepair, then paint a really bad picture before brainwashing simple-minded folks to get rid of them. Happens all the time here: the Viaducts would be a prime example.

[officedweller]

You can see the same forces leading to the redevelopment or 'updating' of existing buildings.
Whenever anyone says 'that looks dated' it should raise a red flag.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

It might have been interesting for the heritage and massing of the building. But it seems a bit of a jumbled mish mash of blocks especially when people compare this to the Empress or the Palace Hotel in San Francisco.

The building was added on to multiple times, so apparently the interior spaces did not flow well (would be crazy to see a floorplan!).
Apparently that was also a reason for the new build rather than adding on again.

[logan5]

I can imagine that in 1949, when the building was torn down, people had no idea how awful architecture was to become. If people back then could see the completely water down architecture of today, that hotel would have been saved.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by logan5

I can imagine that in 1949, when the building was torn down, people had no idea how awful architecture was to become. If people back then could see the completely water down architecture of today, that hotel would have been saved.

Yeah all the architecture pre-1949 was amazing.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

From the rendering, it looks to me more like everyone was in a hurry to make this Canadian city look more American, as in USA. As a result, colonial heritage structures were summarily torn down. Again, decision makers, including City oversee-ers, were terribly short-sighted individuals.

The hotel was closed in 1939, and eventually demolished in 1949. The IM Pei plans were drawn up in 1966, once Eatons brought Cadillac Fairview into the mix. Doesn't seem like anybody was in much of a hurry to do anything. However, it's good to have, on the record, that you would have prefered that they hadn't built the only Downtown mall that we have.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Yeah all the architecture pre-1949 was amazing.

It was a hell of a lot better than it is today. Even a simple factory from back then looks a lot better than any similar sized structure built today.

https://goo.gl/maps/NNygGUVQVbypdHkM6

Actually, could you show me a picture of a building pre war that matches the ugliness of today?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by logan5

It was a hell of a lot better than it is today. Even a simple factory from back then looks a lot better than any similar sized structure built today.

https://goo.gl/maps/NNygGUVQVbypdHkM6

Actually, could you show me a picture of a building pre war that matches the ugliness of today?

Again, come back in 50 years and all this stuff you call ugly will be heritage and beautiful like that factory.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Again, come back in 50 years and all this stuff you call ugly will be heritage and beautiful like that factory.

Assuming that the anticipated major earthquake doesn't occur during those 50 years. In which case the converted factory probably won't be standing. The modern building have a better chance.