Historic Vancouver Photos

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Rico Rommheim

Vancouver had the nicest skyscrapers and buildings back in the early 20th century! Very striking!

Yes, they most certainly did. Those were the days when Vancouver had vision, ambition, and originality. Even though it got a late start on other Canadian cities, it soared ahead in record time. Held such distinctions as having the tallest building in the British Empire, the largest stage west of Chicago, and (later), second most neon signs in all of the world. Back then, developers of the day traveled to cities like New York to inspire their designs whereas now, Portland seems to be the inspiration for design. Can't believe we traded in spectacular designs like we had back then, for the redundant crap that passes for architecture in this town today.

[flight_from_kamakura]

Originally Posted by Overground

That's a decorative arch built in 1927 for the visit of the Duke of Windsor(future King Edward VIII)...the famous one that abdicated.

you got it.



notice the birks and the second hotel vancouver in the background (pic from city archives).

Originally Posted by Overground

Looks like they had a pretty good flag pole back then in front of the Courthouse.

yep, enormous. it was in all the papers when it was built, the tallest pole in western canada they said (true). lol (pic from city archives).

[cc85]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Yes, they most certainly did. Those were the days when Vancouver had vision, ambition, and originality. Even though it got a late start on other Canadian cities, it soared ahead in record time. Held such distinctions as having the tallest building in the British Empire, the largest stage west of Chicago, and (later), second most neon signs in all of the world. Back then, developers of the day traveled to cities like New York to inspire their designs whereas now, Portland seems to be the inspiration for design. Can't believe we traded in spectacular designs like we had back then, for the redundant crap that passes for architecture in this town today.

in due time, just wait, it will come.

[flight_from_kamakura]

coca-cola building.

it's a very basic streamline moderne design for coca-cola's factory/offices, this sat on the southwest corner of burrard and cornwall. well, really on cornwall between chestnut, cyrpess and york streets - bascially bordered by houses on york st, henry hudson school on cypress and a then-wild seaforth park on chestnut. built in 1942, we now have the chemetics international/bc assessment building.

all images from vancouver city archives.

front view, cornwall street:


looking slightly southeast:


looking southwest:



looking west:

[officedweller]

Wow that arch is narrow - as narrow as the Chinatown Gate on Pender.

Those 1940s art moderne styled buildings are an endangered breed in Vancouver - following demolition for the Ritz, Sapphire, Yaletown Park and others.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

anyway, you get the point (which is that the city, the province and the developers utterly ruined the area).

Ruined????

They had to eventually be replaced with bigger, more modern structures.

It's good to preserve a few classic heritage landmark buildings, but for the most part, they have to make room for something newer and better.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

great northern way station.

completed in 1917 and demolished in 1965, great northern station (colloquially known as union station) once stood adjacent to the pacific central station. it's pretty depressing to think that on the site of the failed tech park/new st. pauls hospital site, this thing once sat.

profile (from vpl archives):

It's too bad that this structure was demolished in 1965... Was that the city's undertaking?

It seems as if it could have been used on an interim basis, since the mid-1960's, for a hostel perhaps?

Somehow I could foresee it eventually getting refurbished for some higher use down the road in the context of what may eventually happen on the False Creek flats.

BTW, excellent thread!

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by cc85

in due time, just wait, it will come.

I truly do hope you're right, but judging by the Vancouver's recent history, I'm not holding my breath.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

It's too bad that this structure was demolished in 1965... Was that the city's undertaking?

It seems as if it could have been used on an interim basis, since the mid-1960's, for a hostel perhaps?

Somehow I could foresee it eventually getting refurbished for some higher use down the road in the context of what may eventually happen on the False Creek flats.

BTW, excellent thread!

An excellent thread indeed. The smaller terminal was abandoned because of a tax saving measure whereby the smaller rail company (I believe the Great Northern Railway Company) moved into Canadian National's terminal next door.

The same thing happened with the Second Hotel Vancouver which by most accounts was waaaaay better than the current Hotel Vancouver we have now. It too was torn down and the site remained a parking lot for a quarter century. ( but not b4 it was stripped of anything of value and the items moved to the current Hotel Vancouver).

[officedweller]

For the second Hotel Vancouver, I seem to recall hearing that there was a restrictive covenent not to operate a hotel that would compete - or it was demolished so it would not compete (as well as reducing the property tax burden)

[vanman]

Awesome thread!

I truly do hope you're right, but judging by the Vancouver's recent history, I'm not holding my breath.

Vancouver is by no means unique in this regard. All of NA has lost amazing buildings:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=120874

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by vanman

Awesome thread!




Vancouver is by no means unique in this regard. All of NA has lost amazing buildings:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=120874

Thanks for the link.
The difference between Vancouver and most of those cities is that in other cities, they replaced older buildings with larger, more modern ones whereas with Vancouver, they tore the buildings down, and the sites they sat on remained empty for years, some, like the second train terminal STILL having nothing on them.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by officedweller

For the second Hotel Vancouver, I seem to recall hearing that there was a restrictive covenent not to operate a hotel that would compete - or it was demolished so it would not compete (as well as reducing the property tax burden)

Ya, CN and the CPR entered into an agreement not to run 2 large hotels that would compete with each other. They instead chose to jointly operate one.

(the deal was incredibly near sighted and Vancouver lost an incredible building which remained as a parking lot till the late 60's). The deal between the 2 rail companies also didn't last.

[flight_from_kamakura]

the arches of 1912.

back in the day, backwater cities in the empire and the dominion used to celebrate important (read royal) visits by erecting arches to decorate the route of the royal procession (think of it as an early expo or olympics). on the occasion of the 1912 visit of prince arthur, duke of connaught and governor general of canada, twelve arches were built. (all pictures from the city archives).


here are ten, in order of the parade route from vancouver station:

1. the city of vancouver arch, at hastings and granville.



2. the canadian northern railway arch, on hastings at seymour.




3. the italian colony arch, on hastings at homer.




4. the great northern railway arch, on hastings at hamilton.




5. the japanese arch, at hasting and main.




6. the chinese arch, on pender at carrall.




7. the lumberman's arch, on pender at hamilton (incredible!).




8. the progress club arch, on granville at dunsmuir.




9. the german, austrian and swiss society arch, at granville and georgia.




10. the stanley park arch, at the foot of georgia (now this thing is just embarrassing).



interesting note: most of these lasted a year or two, but the lumberman's arch was moved to stanley park (at broughton point) and it stood there until 1947, so for nearly four decades. during these years, it was symbolic of vancouver in the world's eyes, sort of like how the totem poles are now. in case the photos don't show it, the lumberman's arch was completely constructed from wood.

[deasine]

did we destroy those?!!!!! HOW COULD WE?!!!! They need to resurrect the Downtown East side and include new arches that replicate those. Hopefully if Vancouver concentrates their attention on the downtown east side, it could be a great new hub of cultures.

[entheosfog]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Thanks for the link.
The difference between Vancouver and most of those cities is that in other cities, they replaced older buildings with larger, more modern ones whereas with Vancouver, they tore the buildings down, and the sites they sat on remained empty for years, some, like the second train terminal STILL having nothing on them.

Not Calgary. There's a ton of empty lots that are now just starting to see action after decades of nothing.
I've always been impressed with the stock of old buildings in Vancouver.

[officedweller]

Thanks for the pics of the arches!

[flight_from_kamakura]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

Ruined????

They had to eventually be replaced with bigger, more modern structures.

It's good to preserve a few classic heritage landmark buildings, but for the most part, they have to make room for something newer and better.

well, yes and no.

it's true that valuing "heritage" is a fairly modern development, and obviously, folks in the 1950s/1960s attached prestige to novelty and modernity. and it's true that it's important for cities to evolve. but most of these structures were not replaced with anything "newer and better". demolishing an old brick low-rise to build a tower is one thing, demolishing the birks building for a parking lot or a mall is something altogether different. and the story of the second hotel vancouver is just shameful.

and you know, it wasn't just "a few classic heritage landmark buildings" in the courthouse square area. we saw the demolitions of the hotel vancouver, the lowrise retail annex adjacent to it on howe street, the york hotel, the court house block, the sprott-shaw building, the clement block, and most important of all, the square itself! contrast the public square of 1940 - anchored by the courthouse, hotels and retail - with the abominable robson square of today. honestly, the only way that thing works is for ubc conferences - it's conveniently located and it's comfortably removed from streetlevel, but it's emphatically not a public space (and we'll see how future developments affect that).

you know, during that "clamshell" debate, at some conference here, this architects association rep called it 'vancouver's beloved robson square' and i fought hard to hold back an explosion of uncontrolled laughter. beloved! the courthouse steps are 'beloved', the courthouse square they should've just left alone. imo.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by entheosfog

Not Calgary. There's a ton of empty lots that are now just starting to see action after decades of nothing.
I've always been impressed with the stock of old buildings in Vancouver.

My point wasn't about empty lots, rather the decision to tear down great, historic, structurally sound buildings, and replaced them with a lesser structure or nothing at all.

A quick comparison:

Let see, the second hotel Vancouver and the Palliser Hotel in Calgary were built months apart by the same company. The Palliser still serves the city of Calgary today while Vancouver's was torn down in the 40's. Calgary's old city hall, still around for people to visit today while Vancouver's from the same era; not so much. The Canadian Life Assurance building in Calgary and the Birks Building in Vancouver; buildings that were separated at birth (also built 1 year apart). Today, Calgary's lives on (albeit in a different form) at the base of the Bankers Hall complex, while ours was replaced by a 2 story 70's inspired piece of crap.

When it comes to the loss of important, landmark buildings,(without replacing them with something bigger or better) Vancouver's dubious record is tough to beat.

[entheosfog]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

My point wasn't about empty lots, rather the decision to tear down great, historic, structurally sound buildings, and replaced them with a lesser structure or nothing at all.

A quick comparison:

Let see, the second hotel Vancouver and the Palliser Hotel in Calgary were built months apart by the same company. The Palliser still serves the city of Calgary today while Vancouver's was torn down in the 40's. Calgary's old city hall, still around for people to visit today while Vancouver's from the same era; not so much. The Canadian Life Assurance building in Calgary and the Birks Building in Vancouver; buildings that were separated at birth (also built 1 year apart). Today, Calgary's lives on (albeit in a different form) at the base of the Bankers Hall complex, while ours was replaced by a 2 story 70's inspired piece of crap.

When it comes to the loss of important, landmark buildings,(without replacing them with something bigger or better) Vancouver's dubious record is tough to beat.

Okay, some of Calgary's important landmarks have been saved but there seemed to have been more 'grandiose' buildings built in Vancouver during the early years.
I guess one thing I did notice when comparing the two cities is the sheer amount of heritage buildings left in Vancouver and the number that are designated sites. That to me is impressive. Too bad many of the above mentioned buildings were lost before the value of them was realized.