Historic Vancouver Photos

[whatnext]

Honeymoon in Vancouver, tourism promo film circa 1960:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOkTF8Rz9UQ

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Honeymoon in Vancouver, tourism promo film circa 1960:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOkTF8Rz9UQ

I love such films. It is a shame that it is not in better condition. There is such a feast for the eyes there.

It is neat to see all the uniquely Vancouver traditions, practices and institutions that have endured to this day. Do they still teach children driver safety with go-carts in the park at Second Beach? In the late 70s/early 80s (when I was a child), they still did.

Unfortunately, there is also a little bitterness in watching such films. Through these old films (and through other sources of historical evidence) one sees that Vancouver once possessed a more dynamic, entrepreneurial and pioneering culture; that Vancouver was once on a trajectory to become a powerful centre of commerce and creativity, a New York of the Pacific North West, but whose future and full potential was stunted by the ascension (and continuation) of the expanded regulatory state of the 60s and 70s, making the city much more culturally sedate and economically stagnant than it would have been.

[whatnext]

No, they no longer have the mini-cars at Second Beach. Can you imagine the outcry about "glorifying the automobile" (I'm surprised we didn't hear from our usual suspects on that).

And you're right, I like the line "when a trees falls anywhere in British Columbia it is heard in downtown Vancouver". Now the real estate shell game is seemingly the biggest industry in town. The days of MacBlo are long gone.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

I love such films. It is a shame that it is not in better condition. There is such a feast for the eyes there.

Unfortunately, there is also a little bitterness in watching such films. Through these old films (and through other sources of historical evidence) one sees that Vancouver once possessed a more dynamic, entrepreneurial and pioneering culture; that Vancouver was once on a trajectory to become a powerful centre of commerce and creativity, a New York of the Pacific North West, but whose future and full potential was stunted by the ascension (and continuation) of the expanded regulatory state of the 60s and 70s, making the city much more culturally sedate and economically stagnant than it would have been.

Sadly, you are spot on with your observations. Back then Vancouver was a city where anything was possible. Although the city had a late start, it was coming on as an economic force and the future seemed to be filled with limitless potential. Every street was unique and the streetscape was dynamic, bold, and bright. There was literally something for everyone's tastes downtown. Our neon signs were ranked #3 on the planet! (that in itself would be a great tourist draw today).

But then some of the blue bloods seized power at city hall and decided most of all the above was unsightly and/or evil. That was followed by the special interest nimby groups who did all they could to deter the continuance of economic growth & slow down the pace of the city and create the sterile, repetitive bedroom community style thinking we still see employed today.

[SpongeG]

to be fair that kind of attitude swept through most of north america during that period, all the cities eripping out their street cars, covering up great old buildings, building malls in the suburbs etc.

[EastVanMark]

Really cause I can't think of any other major N. American city that attacked and continued to bombard their business core or entertainment district (neutering it in the process) with mundane residential development the way this city has. And I don't see too many other cities who have the "no fun" moniker attached to them

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Really cause I can't think of any other major N. American city that attacked and continued to bombard their business core or entertainment district (neutering it in the process) with mundane residential development the way this city has.

That's called "Vancouverism," and although I might agree with you, it has led to a new, globally recognized trend in urban development.

(nevertheless, I sure wish we had a "punchier" downtown. Montreal is the kind of downtown I would aspire to)

[phesto]

Mud City squatters camp, Coal Harbour, 1972

45-864 by Nick DeWolf Photo Archive, on Flickr

Coal Harbour, 1976

45-811 by Nick DeWolf Photo Archive, on Flickr

Coal Harbour, 1972

45-820 by Nick DeWolf Photo Archive, on Flickr

Skyline, 1976

gm_10029 Vancouver view of Downtown and North Shore 1976 by CanadaGood, on Flickr

Skyline, 1980 (note Bentall 4 u/c)

10010 Vancouver 1980 by wild prairie man, on Flickr

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

That's called "Vancouverism," and although I might agree with you, it has led to a new, globally recognized trend in urban development.

(nevertheless, I sure wish we had a "punchier" downtown. Montreal is the kind of downtown I would aspire to)

"Vancouverism"= a word used almost exclusively by people residing in Vancouver (and quite possibly a select few in Portland, Oregon).

Secondly, the trend in urban development is people living in downtown cores but not at the expense of defined business or entertainment districts. There is a difference between the two. The recent controversy regarding the sign at BC Place is but one example of the consequences of such planning.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Really cause I can't think of any other major N. American city that attacked and continued to bombard their business core or entertainment district (neutering it in the process) with mundane residential development the way this city has. And I don't see too many other cities who have the "no fun" moniker attached to them

Yawn.....who cares, Vancouver has way, way more good than bad points, and as for it being better in the 60s, not according to my friends from that era. Less paces to go, drinking was largely done at hotels......my neighbors from the uk moved here in the late 50's and described the place as boring and see it as much more grown up and progressive now.

The no fun ditty, relates to the city by laws in regard to licensing and live music....it was not meant to be taken literally....I feel very sorry for you in narrow focus if you actually believe it...sure things can improve...but give your bloody head a shake....yawn

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by delboy

Yawn.....who cares, Vancouver has way, way more good than bad points, and as for it being better in the 60s, not according to my friends from that era. Less paces to go, drinking was largely done at hotels......my neighbors from the uk moved here in the late 50's and described the place as boring and see it as much more grown up and progressive now.

The no fun ditty, relates to the city by laws in regard to licensing and live music....it was not meant to be taken literally....I feel very sorry for you in narrow focus if you actually believe it...sure things can improve...but give your bloody head a shake....yawn

You don't care and your certainly free to do so but I and many more do care. Your assertion of Vancouver having more good points than bad has absolutely no specific relevance to anything in my post. As for your friends who moved here, different strokes for different folks I guess. Some people think drinking tea is exciting I guess, but for most people from that era, they still contend it was better back then. And judging from the picture and video evidence available, I tend to agree with them. Also, of note, all drinking was done in hotels at one time due to Provincial laws so the city had no choice in the matter. Today however, the province has relaxed their regulations but the city has imposed many. That's a VERY BIG difference.

As for "no fun city". Your assertion as to the origin of the motto only goes to prove my point. The bylaws in regards to live music and licensing are PRECISELY what I was talking about. Also I should add that is by far not the only thing that earned the city that nickname-not by a long shot. If you want I could into the long list (and it is long). Also don"t know why someone wouldn't take it literally. Was it a marketing slogan? A joke? Somehow i don't think so. You seem to yawn a lot so why don't you go get some sleep....it might do you some good.

[delboy]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

You don't care and your certainly free to do so but I and many more do care. Your assertion of Vancouver having more good points than bad has absolutely no specific relevance to anything in my post. As for your friends who moved here, different strokes for different folks I guess. Some people think drinking tea is exciting I guess, but for most people from that era, they still contend it was better back then. And judging from the picture and video evidence available, I tend to agree with them. Also, of note, all drinking was done in hotels at one time due to Provincial laws so the city had no choice in the matter. Today however, the province has relaxed their regulations but the city has imposed many. That's a VERY BIG difference.

As for "no fun city". Your assertion as to the origin of the motto only goes to prove my point. The bylaws in regards to live music and licensing are PRECISELY what I was talking about. Also I should add that is by far not the only thing that earned the city that nickname-not by a long shot. If you want I could into the long list (and it is long). Also don"t know why someone wouldn't take it literally. Was it a marketing slogan? A joke? Somehow i don't think so. You seem to yawn a lot so why don't you go get some sleep....it might do you some good.

Take a happy pill u will live longer. No fun van has become over-used to express displeasure or make a point about specific things, such as no fireworks at new year...both the media and the general public have been doing this for a few years.

I am not originally from Canada but moved here 20 years ago in my late twenties. Lived all over the world....Vancouver has a muted nightlife, that's th only real negative, but when u grow up you realize there's more to defining a place, besides it appears to have improved.

I don't see anything different from that video as to choices you have now. In fact since then, the city has gained Granville island, yaletown, coal harbour, a much nicer gastown, world class restaurants, street food, bars and lounges and freedom of more choice to drink with whom you like and wher you want. My neighbors are British, like me, and noted the lack of social opportunities in that era, my friends, who are on their 50s, say much the same about the place through the 70 s....not to much extremely restrictive drinking regs, which i still remember from coming here n the late 80s, even in the early 90s I remember a much duller Vancouver.

Yesvse lost the neon and some buildings...but have gained a more mature city, that granted has one wok ahead of it.....now I'm going for tat lie down

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

"Vancouverism"= a word used almost exclusively by people residing in Vancouver (and quite possibly a select few in Portland, Oregon).

Secondly, the trend in urban development is people living in downtown cores but not at the expense of defined business or entertainment districts. There is a difference between the two. The recent controversy regarding the sign at BC Place is but one example of the consequences of such planning.

"Vancouverism" may only be a locally coined term by your definition, but it did make it into WIKIPEDIA, where it is explained how it is a new model for urban planning.

However, I do agree that there is too much residential infused into the CBD, which waters it (the CBD) down considerably; "neutering" it, as you accurately put it.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

"Vancouverism" may only be a locally coined term by your definition, but it did make it into WIKIPEDIA, where it is explained how it is a new model for urban planning.

However, I do agree that there is too much residential infused into the CBD, which waters it (the CBD) down considerably; "neutering" it, as you accurately put it.

Making it to Wikipedia means absolutely nothing since anyone can post anything on that site, but ya too much residential infused into the CBD was exactly what I was getting at.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by delboy

Take a happy pill u will live longer. No fun van has become over-used to express displeasure or make a point about specific things, such as no fireworks at new year...both the media and the general public have been doing this for a few years.

I am not originally from Canada but moved here 20 years ago in my late twenties. Lived all over the world....Vancouver has a muted nightlife, that's th only real negative, but when u grow up you realize there's more to defining a place, besides it appears to have improved.

I don't see anything different from that video as to choices you have now. In fact since then, the city has gained Granville island, yaletown, coal harbour, a much nicer gastown, world class restaurants, street food, bars and lounges and freedom of more choice to drink with whom you like and wher you want. My neighbors are British, like me, and noted the lack of social opportunities in that era, my friends, who are on their 50s, say much the same about the place through the 70 s....not to much extremely restrictive drinking regs, which i still remember from coming here n the late 80s, even in the early 90s I remember a much duller Vancouver.

Yesvse lost the neon and some buildings...but have gained a more mature city, that granted has one wok ahead of it.....now I'm going for tat lie down

No fun Vancouver being overused is your opinion; not a fact. All I can say in regards to the term is... If the shoe fits...(Btw thanks for pointing out yet another example of why the city has earned that moniker).

I never said that a more active night life is everything to a city. I only made reference to the nightlife from before which was every bit as good and in fact better since the region was only home to about 500,000 people back then and provincial liquor laws were very strict. The very fact that aren't a whole lot of more options today (even non-alcoholic ones) than there were back then speaks volumes. Heck, the fact the city can't even pull off a decent all -ages free New Years event speak even louder. As for the examples you posted Granville Island is from the 70's (i.e. its not new). Coal harbour is laughable because it had more bars in the 70's than is found there now. As for drinking regulations, again false since in the early early 80's the city imposed a cap on the size of liquor licenses (350 seats regardless of venue size or fire code). Also during this time the city put a memorandum on liquor licenses that still exists today for some regions of the city. Back in the old days if someone wanted to open a bar they filled out a form, paid a small fee and was ready to open for business. Since the city stepped in, licenses can go for $100,000's + Also, when granting a license the city makes you sign an agreement whereby they force you to operate your bar in a conservative manner (i.e. no cheap drinks, no nudity, etc). Until just recently, the city also forced you to open any new bar on on a strip of 4 blocks. NONE of this existed before recent history. All this, plus a hell of a lot more = NO FUN

Also, have never heard of anyone equating losing neon to gaining maturity. Most be one of those "special" Vancouver ways of thinking

[Dylan Leblanc]

here are larger versions of some of the photos from above


45-820 by Nick DeWolf Photo Archive, on Flickr


gm_10029 Vancouver view of Downtown and North Shore 1976 by CanadaGood, on Flickr


45-811 by Nick DeWolf Photo Archive, on Flickr


45-864 by Nick DeWolf Photo Archive, on Flickr

[delboy]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

No fun Vancouver being overused is your opinion; not a fact. All I can say in regards to the term is... If the shoe fits...(Btw thanks for pointing out yet another example of why the city has earned that moniker).

I never said that a more active night life is everything to a city. I only made reference to the nightlife from before which was every bit as good and in fact better since the region was only home to about 500,000 people back then and provincial liquor laws were very strict. The very fact that aren't a whole lot of more options today (even non-alcoholic ones) than there were back then speaks volumes. Heck, the fact the city can't even pull off a decent all -ages free New Years event speak even louder. As for the examples you posted Granville Island is from the 70's (i.e. its not new). Coal harbour is laughable because it had more bars in the 70's than is found there now. As for drinking regulations, again false since in the early early 80's the city imposed a cap on the size of liquor licenses (350 seats regardless of venue size or fire code). Also during this time the city put a memorandum on liquor licenses that still exists today for some regions of the city. Back in the old days if someone wanted to open a bar they filled out a form, paid a small fee and was ready to open for business. Since the city stepped in, licenses can go for $100,000's + Also, when granting a license the city makes you sign an agreement whereby they force you to operate your bar in a conservative manner (i.e. no cheap drinks, no nudity, etc). Until just recently, the city also forced you to open any new bar on on a strip of 4 blocks. NONE of this existed before recent history. All this, plus a hell of a lot more = NO FUN

Also, have never heard of anyone equating losing neon to gaining maturity. Most be one of those "special" Vancouver ways of thinking

Best leave then......

[delboy]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

No fun Vancouver being overused is your opinion; not a fact. All I can say in regards to the term is... If the shoe fits...(Btw thanks for pointing out yet another example of why the city has earned that moniker).

I never said that a more active night life is everything to a city. I only made reference to the nightlife from before which was every bit as good and in fact better since the region was only home to about 500,000 people back then and provincial liquor laws were very strict. The very fact that aren't a whole lot of more options today (even non-alcoholic ones) than there were back then speaks volumes. Heck, the fact the city can't even pull off a decent all -ages free New Years event speak even louder. As for the examples you posted Granville Island is from the 70's (i.e. its not new). Coal harbour is laughable because it had more bars in the 70's than is found there now. As for drinking regulations, again false since in the early early 80's the city imposed a cap on the size of liquor licenses (350 seats regardless of venue size or fire code). Also during this time the city put a memorandum on liquor licenses that still exists today for some regions of the city. Back in the old days if someone wanted to open a bar they filled out a form, paid a small fee and was ready to open for business. Since the city stepped in, licenses can go for $100,000's + Also, when granting a license the city makes you sign an agreement whereby they force you to operate your bar in a conservative manner (i.e. no cheap drinks, no nudity, etc). Until just recently, the city also forced you to open any new bar on on a strip of 4 blocks. NONE of this existed before recent history. All this, plus a hell of a lot more = NO FUN

Also, have never heard of anyone equating losing neon to gaining maturity. Most be one of those "special" Vancouver ways of thinking

Yes, things need to improve I agree. You suck and blow plal, all your rants are booze themed. Never suggested losing neon equated to maturity, I think it is a shame wenlostbit, but the city with today offers more than the city depicted in the movie reel.

I actually agree with some of your points, but to pine for an era you never experienced, motivated by perceived nostalgia is very niaive.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by delboy

Yes, things need to improve I agree. You suck and blow plal, all your rants are booze themed. Never suggested losing neon equated to maturity, I think it is a shame wenlostbit, but the city with today offers more than the city depicted in the movie reel.

I actually agree with some of your points, but to pine for an era you never experienced, motivated by perceived nostalgia is very niaive.

I was speaking to the attitudes of the era, not the era itself. Back then Vancouver punched well above its weight in a whole bunch of categories. Today it seems to have too much tunnel vision and is still way too involved in overegulation of just about everything.

Also, I wasn't speaking to just the movie real in the thread but rather the large amounts of both picture & video evidence that illustrates a different city that was more open to opportunity for everyone. (not just some as we do now). I don't need to have lived through WW2 to know that it wasn't exactly the best time in world history. Same thing applies here. Again, for a region that has more than quadrupled in population since that era, the city hasn't exactly lit it up when it comes to the development of "fun" things to do and in recent history has even lost some.
Finally, it is possible to bring up points without needing to stoop down to the level of using personal attacks.

[ckkelley]

Love those old shots of Van. Thanks!