Downtown Vancouver Updates

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Ah yes, nothing says suburban like a heritage district surrounded by density. For example, the suburban area of Old Montreal, and suburban French Quarter in New Orleans . We have one of the densest downtowns in North America and lots of low density, transit-oriented areas outside it. We're not at the last resort where we bulldoze the areas of historic importance. There are thousands of acres of well-connected neighbourhoods that need to densify first. Decades and decades worth.

Ah yes, nothing says suburban like a heritage district surrounded by density.

What are you referring to?

You brought up Nanaimo and Kits Point, which are suburban areas.
Suburbs close by to the city, but still suburban.


It's not like there's no redevelopment happening with the current policies, it's that redevelopment is happening, but height-limited and at a slower pace.
Would it have been better for Woodward's to have been less dense to 'fit' the rest of the neighborhood?
What actual historic value is lost from losing Yaletown Historic District?

Downtown will likely expand to Broadway (eventually), but it's still semi-separated by False Creek and the Flats.
The Downtown Peninsula itself is kind of 'running out of room'- at least in terms of areas connected to SkyTrain to within < 5 min.
Yaletown and Gastown are pretty much on top of SkyTrain, while the West End isn't.

Much of DT East is also historical, but isn't protected in the same way as the official 'historical districts', and allows dense development if facades are protected.


Again, development in the suburbs does not preclude development in Downtown.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Why is Fort Langley historically important? Do we really need to be reminded of the fur trade? It's not as if it's even located where the first fort was built, and only one of the buildings is original, the rest are all reproductions. That whole block could be townhouses, or maybe a mix of condo and townhouse, and just keep the one old building.

That's a red herring.

The Fort is a museum, not a neighborhood.

Yaletown is a neighborhood, not a museum.
Big difference.


We're keeping the buildings around because they look nice.
Which is fine, but why not just keep the facades then?

A lot of other former warehouses in downtown get that treatment.
Why stop that from happening for these couple of blocks?


Gastown is a bit different, but it's already partially redeveloped.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by fredinno

That's a red herring.

The Fort is a museum, not a neighborhood.

Yaletown is a neighborhood, not a museum.
Big difference.

We're keeping the buildings around because they look nice.
Which is fine, but why not just keep the facades then?

A lot of other former warehouses in downtown get that treatment.
Why stop that from happening for these couple of blocks?

Gastown is a bit different, but it's already partially redeveloped.

They're similar, because they retain elements of history and the character of the area that created their respective cities. Yaletown, like the Exchange District in Winnipeg, or the Distillery District in Toronto (and many US and European examples exist too), is a unique collection of buildings that were almost all constructed within five years as the city became a much more important trans-shipment and manufacturing centre. The street pattern (with no lanes, using the slope to allow direct railcar access into the loading docks) isn't found anywhere else that I know of. The whole area might have been lost in the 1980s, but it's transformation to a vibrant retail and restaurant area has been very successful. It's not necessary to change its character by allowing towers. It could be made even better if the BIA could be persuaded to abandon the street parking, but that doesn't seem likely for now.

Downtown doesn't have to keep growing it's residential population by trashing a small area with a collection of interesting, historic, (by Vancouver standards) and already reasonably dense, mostly employment-related buildings. And it doesn't need office towers here because there's still decades worth of capacity within the CBD. There are plenty of older, tired office buildings that could take a building two or three times bigger, and, as you said, there are other areas near Yaletown where developers can add residential towers over old warehouses, as they are on Robson, and have proposed on Beatty.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by fredinno

What are you referring to?

You brought up Nanaimo and Kits Point, which are suburban areas.
Suburbs close by to the city, but still suburban.


It's not like there's no redevelopment happening with the current policies, it's that redevelopment is happening, but height-limited and at a slower pace.
Would it have been better for Woodward's to have been less dense to 'fit' the rest of the neighborhood?
What actual historic value is lost from losing Yaletown Historic District?

Downtown will likely expand to Broadway (eventually), but it's still semi-separated by False Creek and the Flats.
The Downtown Peninsula itself is kind of 'running out of room'- at least in terms of areas connected to SkyTrain to within < 5 min.
Yaletown and Gastown are pretty much on top of SkyTrain, while the West End isn't.

Much of DT East is also historical, but isn't protected in the same way as the official 'historical districts', and allows dense development if facades are protected.


Again, development in the suburbs does not preclude development in Downtown.

Kits Point being considered 'suburban' by you is exactly the problem. It should be developed as a dense, inner-city neighbourhood long before we destroy the character of Vancouver's few historic districts. Nanaimo is on a skytrain station. More connected than much of Gastown. If Vancouver is just towers on every square foot of the peninsula, with no heritage, and mcmansions everywhere else...No thanks. Your vision of the City is perhaps its worst possible incarnation.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by csbvan

Kits Point being considered 'suburban' by you is exactly the problem. It should be developed as a dense, inner-city neighbourhood long before we destroy the character of Vancouver's few historic districts. Nanaimo is on a skytrain station. More connected than much of Gastown. If Vancouver is just towers on every square foot of the peninsula, with no heritage, and mcmansions everywhere else...No thanks. Your vision of the City is perhaps its worst possible incarnation.

Oakridge T. Center is suburban, even though it's within the city limits.
City limits are arbitrary, and the only reason Vancouver is the size it is is due to the bankruptcy of South Vancouver and Point Grey during the Depression.


Nanaimo Station is about as far as Oakridge from Downtown.

Kits Point is closer as the crow flies.
I guess if the City Center continues to spread out towards the West End, it would eventually become part of 'downtown', the same way Broadway is planned to be. That will take a while, though.


Meanwhile, all of Gastown (right up to Columbia St.) is < 10min walking to either Stadium-Chinatown or Waterfront.
Half of it is within <5 min to either station (pretty much right on top of the station).


Metro Vancouver does not designate the Kits Point area as part of the 'city center':


This is what I am using as a baseline for the definition of 'urban' and 'suburban'. Both terms are somewhat arbitrary.

Middle-density housing outside the city center inside CoV is still 'suburban'.

----
I don't like your straw-manning. I never said anything of that sort.



In fact, I have stated multiple times already that development in the City Center does not preclude development elsewhere.
We're very far away from having to worry about restricting development space to keep house prices higher.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by fredinno

This is what I am using as a baseline for the definition of 'urban' and 'suburban'. Both terms are somewhat arbitrary.

Just my $0.02, but I have a hard time considering any neighbourhood where you can walk to downtown in 15 minutes "suburban. Given the density and level of commercial activity in Kitsilano, and the proximity of Kits Point to downtown, your boundary should probably be extended down Broadway to Macdonald if you want to include all of Vancouver's core. And outside of that core, I would be hard pressed to paint all of the neighbourhoods as "suburban", especially east of Cambie given the commercial activity and density that cut through many of them along arterials like Main, Kingsway, Commercial/Knight, and Hastings.

On another note, someone should swing by the Coal Harbour Community Centre and get some updated pictures. The wall along Hastings and the park is at-grade now with significant concrete pours taking place last week, and the rebar for the elevator core continues to climb.

[officedweller]

I wouldn't be so focussed on densifying only the downtown peninsula - that's buying into the NIMBY preservation of the status quo on the Westside and elsewhere. There are many current and future rapid transit friendly nodes that could be densified before sacrificing historic areas. With the distributed commuting patterns around the Lower Mainland, it's not necessary to focus so heavily on the downtown peninsula.
The historic areas are preserved, not for commercial value, but an intangible value that our society as a whole values. The same could be said for not developing lands currently designated as parkland.
It's not always about highest and best use commercially.

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by officedweller

....The historic areas are preserved, not for commercial value, but an intangible value that our society as a whole values. The same could be said for not developing lands currently designated as parkland. It's not always about highest and best use commercially.

Yes, I find it kind of sad that you can go to many cities and see buildings that have stood for hundreds of years, preserved because they are historically importnant. Then you walk around Vancouver and see signs that effectively say "something historically important used to be here fifty years ago, we tore it down but we did leave this nice sign".

[TwoFace]

Some people think a City should look like this
https://www.wired.com/2016/12/aurelien-marechal-block-china-cities/

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The historic areas are preserved, not for commercial value, but an intangible value that our society as a whole values. The same could be said for not developing lands currently designated as parkland.
It's not always about highest and best use commercially.

The difference between underutilizing land in order to provide a public utility which cannot be provided any other way, and underutilizing land to warehouse old dilapitated buildings which could be replaced with objectively better buildings that would serve the same purpose but better is pretty significant.

There is nothing valuable, intangible or not, about the physical bricks and mortar being one hundred years old. If the aesthetic of the area matters so much, provide developers with an aesthetic guide to the area and let the area adapt to to the modern day.

I, for one, would argue that the intangible harm that heritage protection NIMBYism does is far greater than any intangible value it provides. It's disgusting to me that there are SFHs protected in the downtown core just because they're "old and cute".

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

The difference between underutilizing land in order to provide a public utility which cannot be provided any other way, and underutilizing land to warehouse old dilapitated buildings which could be replaced with objectively better buildings that would serve the same purpose but better is pretty significant.

There is nothing valuable, intangible or not, about the physical bricks and mortar being one hundred years old. If the aesthetic of the area matters so much, provide developers with an aesthetic guide to the area and let the area adapt to to the modern day.

I, for one, would argue that the intangible harm that heritage protection NIMBYism does is far greater than any intangible value it provides. It's disgusting to me that there are SFHs protected in the downtown core just because they're "old and cute".

We get it. You don't like old buildings.

You should move to Vancouver, stand for election, get elected, and then persuade over half the City Council that your views should be adopted as policy. Good luck with that.

Otherwise you're going to have to live with either token facade preservation of some of the early Vancouver buildings that are still standing (Army and Navy, Blood Alley, 155 Water St etc) or the whole building (Post Office, The Bay, Yaletown warehouse district, four old houses on Hamilton St and five on Helmcken St).

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

We get it. You don't like old buildings.

You should move to Vancouver, stand for election, get elected, and then persuade over half the City Council that your views should be adopted as policy. Good luck with that.

Otherwise you're going to have to live with either token facade preservation of some of the early Vancouver buildings that are still standing (Army and Navy, Blood Alley, 155 Water St etc) or the whole building (Post Office, The Bay, Yaletown warehouse district, four old houses on Hamilton St and five on Helmcken St).

Something, something, we get it already you love old buildings, does that make us even?

I see this discussion I have to participate. Change doesn't happen unless people speak up. Should we just "get over it" that SFD exclusionary zoning is overprotected in Vancouver? Should we "get over it" that the MVRD municipalities other than Vancouver refuse to build supportive housing or services? Should we "get over it" that there is more than enough money in the provincial budget to rebuild every highway in the south central interior, but there's no money to build the UBCx Skytrain line? I think it's important to stand and advocate for positive change in the world, even if it's not electorally popular at the moment.

Firstly, there's nothing wrong with old buildings, we just need to be willing to let them go when they outlive their usefulness.

Secondly, I think I've said before that facade preservation isn't inherently bad, it's just kind of ridiculous that people need it to feel satisfied.

[trofirhen]

One piece of heritage work I personally love is the King George fountain on Hornby Street outside the VAG. It is getting old, crumbling, and chipped away, and needs some cosmetic surgery. Is that possible?
Lighting it up better at night would be good, too, IMO, if it's not too $$ expensive. Cleaning it, too! The fountain adds to that toney, refined feeling along that part of Hornby, one of our smarter streets.

https://evelazarus.com/canada/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/10-c-VAG-fountain-640x480.jpg

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Something, something, we get it already you love old buildings, does that make us even?

I see this discussion I have to participate. Change doesn't happen unless people speak up. Should we just "get over it" that SFD exclusionary zoning is overprotected in Vancouver? Should we "get over it" that the MVRD municipalities other than Vancouver refuse to build supportive housing or services? Should we "get over it" that there is more than enough money in the provincial budget to rebuild every highway in the south central interior, but there's no money to build the UBCx Skytrain line? I think it's important to stand and advocate for positive change in the world, even if it's not electorally popular at the moment.

Firstly, there's nothing wrong with old buildings, we just need to be willing to let them go when they outlive their usefulness.

Secondly, I think I've said before that facade preservation isn't inherently bad, it's just kind of ridiculous that people need it to feel satisfied.

Some of those things are not like the others. Heritage advocates are totally unhappy with facade preservation, but given seismic issues and (in Downtown) the developer's preference for including underground parking, that's often the best that's on offer. I don't support the idea of retaining every old building for the sake of it, and I also don't like the idea of demolishing anything and everything old that stands in the way of redevelopment. There's a middle route.

Taking the Army and Navy on Cordova, which is the facade of the Lonsdale Block, it's one of the earliest brick buildings in the city, when Cordova was a more important street than Hastings. It was actually developed by two developers, and had several different buildings behind a unified 180' facade, built in 1888. It was the Dunn-Miller Block when it was built, developed by one of the most city's successful merchants in partnership with the former policeman of Granville, appointed as postmaster in the new City of Vancouver.

It is viewed as a significant heritage resource because it was an amazingly ambitious building for a city that was only two years old, in an Italianate style designed by an American, that was retained when Army and Navy completely redeveloped the block in the 1960s, rather than tearing it down. Many of the buildings (or at least the facades) of that block of Cordova are still standing, but adaptive re-use and redevelopment have updated the structures, and added many more floors.

You appear to think that you think it's unnecessary to retain that facade, (or old houses, and presumably almost any old buildings?) and you've made that clear in several posts. Your statement that "Firstly, there's nothing wrong with old buildings, we just need to be willing to let them go when they outlive their usefulness" is a contradiction. If there's nothing wrong with them, then adaptive reuse, and adding additional space above them means we don't have to let them go when they outlive their usefulness. You seem to suggest we should let them go because you find the presence of some of them 'disgusting' and 'ridiculous'. I don't think that's a position that most people would agree with.

[GenWhy?]

Big fan of The Banff and Abbott House in the cold Coal Harbour area.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

One piece of heritage work I personally love is the King George fountain on Hornby Street outside the VAG.

https://evelazarus.com/canada/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/10-c-VAG-fountain-640x480.jpg

i always thought that when they removed the centennial fountain (terrible idea), this one should have been moved back out front, where it used to be.

Originally Posted by Changing City

Taking the Army and Navy on Cordova, which is the facade of the Lonsdale Block, it's one of the earliest brick buildings in the city, when Cordova was a more important street than Hastings. It was actually developed by two developers, and had several different buildings behind a unified 180' facade, built in 1888. It was the Dunn-Miller Block when it was built, developed by one of the most city's successful merchants in partnership with the former policeman of Granville, appointed as postmaster in the new City of Vancouver.

It is viewed as a significant heritage resource because it was an amazingly ambitious building for a city that was only two years old, in an Italianate style designed by an American, that was retained when Army and Navy completely redeveloped the block in the 1960s, rather than tearing it down. Many of the buildings (or at least the facades) of that block of Cordova are still standing, but adaptive re-use and redevelopment have updated the structures, and added many more floors.

that is a very interesting history. thanks for telling it.

its interesting how the CoV, back in the day, had all these ambitious buildings built by private people, and then ambitious projects also by the City. people and government clearly had a lot of faith in this tiny little city on the edge of the pacific.

i think the Birks Building is the biggest loss of a heritage building we ever had. such a shame it ever got demolished. i would say its our version of NYC Penn Station, demolished in the 1960s and also led to their heritage preservation laws.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You appear to think that you think it's unnecessary to retain that facade, (or old houses, and presumably almost any old buildings?) and you've made that clear in several posts. Your statement that "Firstly, there's nothing wrong with old buildings, we just need to be willing to let them go when they outlive their usefulness" is a contradiction. If there's nothing wrong with them, then adaptive reuse, and adding additional space above them means we don't have to let them go when they outlive their usefulness. You seem to suggest we should let them go because you find the presence of some of them 'disgusting' and 'ridiculous'. I don't think that's a position that most people would agree with.

I think you have a version of me in your mind that isn't correct.

I think facade preservation is a very weird practice but I don't think it hurts anyone or society so to me it's not an evil. I think I've regularly expressed that view. To me it's like people who buy crystals to create the correct resonance in their house. I really don't get it, but if it makes you happy I guess you're not hurting anyone.

I've also made it clear in the past that adaptive reuse is perfectly fine too as long as the underlying structure isn't compromising what can be built. The Post building is a great example of this going right, but Gastown, Yaletown, and Shaughnessey are all examples of this going wrong. If skeletal facade preservation was all that was going on I'd have absolutely no issue with it, but you can't honestly tell me that there is going to be any adaptive reuse of those SFHs downtown. Gastown abuts the business economic core of the city, but you cannot honestly tell me there's an adaptive reuse of buildings in Gastown to match that land use that you'd be happy with. Yaletown has now become an inverse Brentwood: An island of 1-4 story buildings in a sea of development. These are not healthy development patterns for the city.

I'm honestly not at all disgusted by their age (though to be honest I am disgusted by their lack of safety and lack of modern building codes), all I'm disgusted by is a practice to intentionally neuter the economic and social development of our city in order to save the "character". We should be working to maintain our standard of living, promote the economic growth of our city, and do our duty to future generations instead of longing sentimentally at brick and wood.

I also think that heritage preservation tends to be a subjective and classist practice that acts solely as NIMBYism and is only post-hoc justified as "historical preservation", but that's harder to pin down.

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by chowhou

If skeletal facade preservation was all that was going on I'd have absolutely no issue with it, but you can't honestly tell me that there is going to be any adaptive reuse of those SFHs downtown.

Many are adapted as multi-family or commercial. The ones left in the West End or just leftovers of orphan lot assemblies / hold-outs. The Red Accordion is a great example. Cardaro Cafe. The homes / shops at 957 Nicola. The little yellow house at The Pacific building.

[GenWhy?]

I guess a crucial element here is re-use and change of use. These warehouses in Yaletown are no longer industrial.

The SF homes downtown / West End are adapted for multi-family, commercial, or hotel use. The real kicker is the SF homes / mansions outside downtown cannot be adapted for alternative uses, which is very exclusive and preservationist.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

Many are adapted as multi-family or commercial. The ones left in the West End or just leftovers of orphan lot assemblies / hold-outs. The Red Accordion is a great example. Cardaro Cafe. The homes / shops at 957 Nicola. The little yellow house at The Pacific building.

I wasn't using adaptive reuse correctly, I really meant development while retaining the original structure, such as adding additional floors to the Army and Navy as previously mentioned. I just now realised that they are currently adaptively reused. That's not sufficient in my mind.

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

The real kicker is the SF homes / mansions outside downtown cannot be adapted for alternative uses, which is very exclusive and preservationist.

One might even say conservative.

As it stands today, the SF homes / mansions outside downtown aren't nearly as much of an obstruction as the ones downtown since it's not as though anything else is allowed there anyway, but once the BC government legalises housing options on RS lots, they're definitely going to start getting in the way.