Lost Buildings of Vancouver

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

This is beyond depressing

If you think this is depressing, try going through one of these threads about New York City...

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

For me the biggest loss will always Vancouver's sign culture. I love the old streets lit up with countless interesting and creative neon signs.

Vancouver had such a unique image back then.

Seems like present people are afraid to re-create that vitality and progress.

[Vin]

This is what many of the forumers have been discussing lately:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...lism-formulism

[osirisboy]

At least we aren't tearing things down only to replace them with surface parking lots

[trofirhen]

I think the saddest loss of all was the old Birks Building. The elegant Edwardian façade, the curved corners and display windows, really gave a "mature city sparkle" to downtown.

[misher]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I think the saddest loss of all was the old Birks Building. The elegant Edwardian façade, the curved corners and display windows, really gave a "mature city sparkle" to downtown.

I do feel saddened that we focus most of our development on downtown which also has most of our historical buildings leading to large incentives to take them down.

I do wonder how earthquake safe some of those old towers are though so there are tradeoffs. I definitely would not want a spinning Empire Landmark falling on me.

[Migrant_Coconut]

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vanc...lism-formulism

The demise of the Birks Building did have a silver lining. It served as the catalyst for Vancouver’s far stronger heritage preservation regulations.

Today, we look back at these decades of growth and loss and wonder, how could anyone allow such historical landmarks to be demolished?

But, that is the catch. At the time of their demolition, many of these structures weren’t considered to have any special historical value. The second Hotel Vancouver was a mere 33 years old when it was torn down, the equivalent to a building constructed in the mid-1980s today. Even the Birks building was only 61 years old when demolished.

To many, these were likely seen as outdated designs that had fallen out of fashion.

Today, despite how mature we believe to have become in preserving our architectural heritage, history has started to repeat itself.

Whether you love the Empire Landmark or hate it, this is such a garbage argument. Save it... because Brutalism is simply "out of style" and will be appreciated half a century later?

Let's play this out: by the time that happens, there'll be one or more new architectural styles starting to phase out the existing James Cheng glass-and-spandrel. So I guess the "cookie-cutter" high rises replacing the hotel will then be one-of-a-kind beautiful heritage structures? No, some things are just near-universally ugly, stop comparing everything to the Birks just because it's old and about to go.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by misher

I do feel saddened that we focus most of our development on downtown which also has most of our historical buildings leading to large incentives to take them down.

I do wonder how earthquake safe some of those old towers are though so there are tradeoffs. I definitely would not want a spinning Empire Landmark falling on me.

There simply is an unwillingness to let downtown expand beyond its current limits. It's a very entrenched North American mentality to have a huge picket-fence sprawl but having a limited small downtown footprint. They keep taking away the older buildings because of the limits of growth for larger buildings. Sad.

Well, we may lose the Bay or Sinclair centre one day if we are not careful enough.

Originally Posted by osirisboy

At least we aren't tearing things down only to replace them with surface parking lots

What if they can't sell enough of those condos and the project is abandoned like the former Ritz Carlton (now Trump tower) due to a real estate recession? I mean anything can happen. The demolition of the Landmark hotel makes Vancouver not only lose much sought-after hotel rooms but also a revolving restaurant that is never going to be replaced by the new condo development.

[osirisboy]

Yes anything can happen but they aren't demolishing with the intent of leaving it a surface lot

[Tetsuo]

Wish they weren't cheap with the seismic upgrades, and upgraded instead of rebuilding these schools with boxed designs that will look dated and not stand the test of time
(like most East Side Schools built post-WWII)



Today


Then


Today


I mean Charles Dickens replacement doesn't look so bad & at least they kept parts of Kits/Lord Kitcherner, but still...

[Vin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRP3...ature=youtu.be

See Vancouver's city centre during a more elegant time in the 1930s.

[Sheba]

Sort of related, and I didn't want to start a thread just for this - Buried treasures uncovered by building work (slideshow)

[Nites]

I hope they continue keep the post WWI/WWII schools in Vancouver. Just to name a few:

Lord Strathcona - 592 E Pender St
Sir Sanford - E 49th & Knight St
Sir Guy Carelton - 3250 Kingsway
Lord Selkirk - 1750 E 22nd St
Shaunessy Elementary - 4250 Marguerite St
Kerrisdale Elementary - 5555 Carnarvon St

Most of the elementry schools in Surrey were built 1940/50s and they were just boxes with most of them already renovated or replace entirely.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Sort of related, and I didn't want to start a thread just for this - Buried treasures uncovered by building work (slideshow)

Much as I'd like us to find a sabertooth skeleton or an MST carving, I don't think that's going to happen.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Nites

I hope they continue keep the post WWI/WWII schools in Vancouver. Just to name a few:

Lord Strathcona - 592 E Pender St
Sir Sanford - E 49th & Knight St
Sir Guy Carelton - 3250 Kingsway
Lord Selkirk - 1750 E 22nd St
Shaunessy Elementary - 4250 Marguerite St
Kerrisdale Elementary - 5555 Carnarvon St

Most of the elementry schools in Surrey were built 1940/50s and they were just boxes with most of them already renovated or replace entirely.

It's a mixture; some are being kept and upgraded, others are being (slowly) replaced. The whole programme is costed at $1.5bn, and runs well past 2023

Lord Strathcona - 592 E Pender St
- Partially seismically upgraded recently. One building has currently not been upgraded, and is surplus.

Sir Sanford - E 49th & Knight St
- I assume you mean Sir Sanford Fleming. It's being replaced - construction of a replacement school is underway. The replacement school is located north of the current building, near the intersection of Lanark St. and E. 47th.

Sir Guy Carelton - 3250 Kingsway
- no programme yet decided.

Lord Selkirk - 1750 E 22nd St
- funding approval in February 2019 for seismic upgrade of the existing school building that requires at upgrade, with temporary accommodation needed while it takes place

Shaunessy Elementary - 4250 Marguerite St
- Shaughnessy Elementary has been partially upgraded

Kerrisdale Elementary - 5555 Carnarvon St
- has been fully upgraded

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

At least we aren't tearing things down only to replace them with surface parking lots

This Week in History: 1946: American planner proposes paving Vancouver's historic core for parking lots

Change was in the air in January, 1946.

“The adage ‘New times demand new measures and new men’ was never more apt than at present,” wrote urban planner Russell H. Riley in a report on Vancouver’s The Downtown Business District.

“The post-war years will witness many significant changes in urban life, in transportation, in building construction, and in many of our individual habits and activities.”

The Vancouver Sun reported on Riley’s plan for downtown on Jan. 23, 1946. The “many significant changes” he recommended were startling.

“Expert Would Raze Downtown Blocks,” was The Sun’s headline on the front page. “Drastic Plan to Provide Parking Space for Motor Cars.”

Indeed. Riley proposed to double parking spaces downtown by knocking down almost five blocks for “off street parking areas.”

Riley was an American who worked with the legendary planner Harland Bartholomew of St. Louis. Bartholomew had been tapped to produce a landmark 310-page civic plan by the city in 1928.

...

He also thought the city should move forward with a “civic centre” on the Central School site at Pender and Cambie, where Vancouver Community College is today. It would have been built over a parking garage for 2,000 cars.

A civic centre proposal had been mooted since the original 1928 Bartholomew plan, which had proposed an art deco wonder at Burrard and Pacific. The only part of the original civic centre proposal that was built was the Burrard Bridge.

Riley’s other startling suggestion was to place a limit of 10 to 12 storeys on any new buildings downtown. That one didn’t seem to go anywhere.

The Sun’s editorial pages dubbed the plan to raze much of Gastown “drastic.”

...

Most of Riley’s recommendations fell by the wayside, but two blocks of Gastown were eventually razed for the Woodward’s parkade (the Cordova street side in 1957, the Water Street parkade in 1971).

In 2011, planner Andy Yan convinced his boss, architect Bing Thom, to scan several Vancouver plans by Bartholomew and his associates, including Riley’s 1946 plan. It was Thom’s 125th birthday present to Vancouver.

Thom died in 2016, but his gift keeps on giving. You can view and download the old plans at https://archive.org/details/harlandbartholomew.

[officedweller]

Interestingly, the Civic Centre Plan (Victory Square area) had:
- an Opera House on the site of the Queen Elizabeth Theatre,
- an Art Gallery & Museum on Larwill Park where the new VAG is proposed, and
- a Vocational School on the VCC site.


https://archive.org/details/civiccen...ge/20/mode/2up