Historic Vancouver Photos - Page 15

Metro-One · #**281** Posted: **Aug 12, 2011, 12:09 AM**

What happened to the view of the mountains!

EastVanMark · #**282** Posted: **Aug 12, 2011, 12:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

What happened to the view of the mountains!

...and just imagine taller towers replaced those smaller buildings and; the sky did NOT in fact fall down and the mountains didn't disappear....kinda makes you think there's a lesson in there somewhere

If todays' City Council was around back then, no buildings higher than than 4 floors would ever have been built.

dreambrother808 · #**283** Posted: **Aug 12, 2011, 12:42 AM**

View cones have been around since 1989 and were therefore not created by today's city council. This council, in fact, worked to relax them in certain locations.

As well, they seem to be supported by a majority of Vancouverites.

EastVanMark · #**284** Posted: **Aug 12, 2011, 12:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreambrother808

View cones have been around for quite a while and were therefore not created by today's city council.

As well, they seem to be supported by a majority of Vancouverites.

True enough they have been supported by multiple councils.

However them "seeming to be supported by a majority of Vancouverites" is pure speculation and not a shred of credible evidence supports that theory which always gets past as "facts" by nimbys

jlousa · #**285** Posted: **Aug 12, 2011, 2:02 AM**

Except the study conducted by the city which shows ~80% of Vancouverites did not want changes to the view cones. (The city council would've been more then willing to relax them if the public was on the other side).

Don't take my word for it though.

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plannin...acksummary.pdf

Not sure why anyone would dispute that Vancouverites like the view cones.

EastVanMark · #**286** Posted: **Aug 12, 2011, 3:16 AM**

That "study" is laughable as is the group whom commissioned it (City Hall). The city is legendary for its biased crap studies and this one is no different.

To illustrate this, look no further than these findings found within the report.

"The concept of including 3-4 towers into protected
view cones through an expansion of the higher building
policy was endorsed by roughly half of the population
polled (53%). Residents tended to have greater
tolerance for adding tall buildings into the skyline than
they did for inserting them into specific view corridors.
While roughly six in ten individuals would accept these
taller buildings into the skyline, less than a majority
found them acceptable when considering the impact
on each of four specific views."

So the above shows how results can get twisted around to appear to hold any viewpoint.
So, until they come out with a black-and-white, yes-or-no type vote or plebiscite, these "studys" are highly suspect

Prometheus · #**287** Posted: **Aug 12, 2011, 4:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlousa

Except the study conducted by the city which shows ~80% of Vancouverites did not want changes to the view cones.

That study is meaningless.

What kind of answer a study generates depends on how the study frames the question. The study you are referring to framed the issue in a negative way. That is, the study emphasized what could be lost, not what could be gained. Had the study framed the issue in a positive way, i.e., had the study showed renders of downtown with a number of well-placed, architecturally superior buildings piercing the skyline (and thus the viewcones) against the backdrop of the mountains and then asked people if they would like their city and environment to look like this, 80% of Vancouverites would probably have said yes.

In fact, something similar to this happened last October during the Open Houses for Opportunities for Higher Buildings in Downtown, where the city displayed renders of generic higher buildings in downtown. Despite such open houses typically being dominated by anti-growth activists and the renders showing only generic massings rather than actual examples of beautiful architecture, 64.7% of the respondents supported the increase of maximum building heights in the CBD. Only 30.8% opposed higher buildings.

Don't take my word for it though: See page 11 (and appendix D) of the city's report: http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/...heDowntown.pdf

When Vancouverites are actually shown concrete depictions of the many beauties and benefits of eliminating (or intelligently relaxing) the viewcones, they will support the idea.

ckkelley · #**288** Posted: **Aug 12, 2011, 4:49 AM**

Yeah, I dunno....those survey results seem pretty scientific to me. I'm satisfied with it's veracity.

Dylan Leblanc · #**289** Posted: **Aug 29, 2011, 11:20 PM**

Found out that this mural is in West Vancouver - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=capers,...,,0,-3.74&z=17

http://vancouvertodaypauline.blogspo...vancouver.html

There's also a painting of this in the Mayor's office at Vancouver City Hall - http://www.mckenziefineartgallery.ca...l/page0041.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc

Here's the mural, I think it's in North Van, showing the first arrival of the white man.

hollywoodnorth · #**290** Posted: **Aug 30, 2011, 4:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Leblanc

Found out that this mural is in West Vancouver - http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=capers,...,,0,-3.74&z=17

http://vancouvertodaypauline.blogspo...vancouver.html

There's also a painting of this in the Mayor's office at Vancouver City Hall - http://www.mckenziefineartgallery.ca...l/page0041.htm

many thanks for the update

good leg work!

LeftCoaster · #**291** Posted: **Aug 30, 2011, 1:22 PM**

Ya thats on the side of the old capers at Marine and 25th. Was always my favourite one growing up.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=dundara...12,104.66,,0,3

hollywoodnorth · #**292** Posted: **Sep 26, 2011, 8:17 AM**

found some cool old pics of dowtown train related at .. http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrain...ver_aerial.htm

Distill3d · #**293** Posted: **Sep 27, 2011, 7:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

found some cool old pics of dowtown train related at .. http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrain...ver_aerial.htm

Well that helps explain why Pacific Blvd is such a wide downtown street. Wow. Great find!

officedweller · #**294** Posted: **Sep 27, 2011, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

found some cool old pics of dowtown train related at .. http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrain...ver_aerial.htm

Edit - that's the Del Prado Block that's under construction or a burnt out shell.
Also shows the Empress Block (Milestones Yaletown) before its top floors burned down.

whatnext · #**295** Posted: **Sep 28, 2011, 1:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

found some cool old pics of dowtown train related at .. http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrain...ver_aerial.htm

Interesting to note that was the coach yard, so all of that was passenger equipment! Certainly a far cry from today. I have some memory of looking down from the Granville Street bridge and seeing the yards below and to the east.

PS For those who didn't scroll down to the bottom of the page, click more views, there is another page of photos.

entheosfog · #**296** Posted: **Sep 28, 2011, 7:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distill3d

Well that helps explain why Pacific Blvd is such a wide downtown street. Wow. Great find!

I heard it was made so wide because it was supposed to be part of a bigger road expansion project that never materialized, kind of a freeway portion of it. It sure is a long haul for pedestrians to cross.

Pinion · #**297** Posted: **Sep 28, 2011, 7:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

found some cool old pics of dowtown train related at .. http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrain...ver_aerial.htm

Anyone know what all those buildings are near what is now the museum? It's all park now (south of Burrard bridge). Looks like government buildings of some sort.

trofirhen · #**298** Posted: **Sep 28, 2011, 9:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pinion

Anyone know what all those buildings are near what is now the museum? It's all park now (south of Burrard bridge). Looks like government buildings of some sort.

They may be army barracks of some sort. The Seaforth Highlanders' Scottish baronial (??) style building is just at the south end of the Burrard Bridge, so there's a logical connection by proximity.

... then again, maybe not. More informed SSP VANCOUVER members will correct me, I'm sure.

jsbertram · #**299** Posted: **Sep 28, 2011, 11:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by entheosfog

I heard it was made so wide because it was supposed to be part of a bigger road expansion project that never materialized, kind of a freeway portion of it. It sure is a long haul for pedestrians to cross.

I've always been told that Pacific Blvd was deliberately built very wide so that there was room for a streetcar line in the middle.

jsbertram · #**300** Posted: **Sep 28, 2011, 11:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trofirhen

They may be army barracks of some sort. The Seaforth Highlanders' Scottish baronial (??) style building is just at the south end of the Burrard Bridge, so there's a logical connection by proximity.

... then again, maybe not. More informed SSP VANCOUVER members will correct me, I'm sure.

Also, looking at the east side of Burrard Bridge, north of Molson's Brewery, there is a collection of buildings that appear to be attached to the side of the bridge. These are (were) the local service shops and barns for the BCER trains that ran from Vancouver to Richmond via the Arbutus tracks.

If you follow the direction of the Kitsilano trestle, you can see the trolley line that went under the Burrard Bridge and headed west to Kits Beach to a terminus loop roughly where the Kits Beach parking lots & tennis courts are today.