HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted: Mar 30, 2011, 10:21 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 25,341
Vancouver’s lost landmarks

Vancouver’s lost landmarks

Many of the city’s historic buildings have fallen to the wrecker’s ball over the last 125 years

By John Mackie, Vancouver Sun March 30, 2011 3:01 PM


Opened in 1913, the Birks building was torn down in 1974 for the Scotia Tower. But not without furious opposition from the general public, which was shocked that one of Vancouver’s signature buildings was demolished.
Photograph by: Handout, Vancouver Sun file photo


Vancouver isn’t all that old, as cities go, but we’ve done a remarkable job of erasing our architectural history.

Only a handful of buildings are left from the 1880s; there are probably only a couple of hundred from the 1890s. Nobody really knows, because the city’s heritage register missed many old buildings when it was compiled in the 1980s.

To mark the city’s 125th birthday, we decided to put together list of 10 lost landmarks. This is a daunting task — a lot of great buildings have been torn down in Vancouver.

1) The obvious lost landmark is the old Hotel Vancouver, which went up in 1916 at Georgia and Granville and was torn down in 1949. It replaced the original Hotel Vancouver, which was built in the same spot in 1887. It was relatively small, so work on a new hotel began in 1911.

Vancouver was booming at the time, and the second Hotel Vancouver was incredibly opulent. It was designed in the Italian renaissance style by Francis S. Swales, with tiers that stepped up to a central section, from seven to 10 and finally 16 storeys. Features included arched windows, castle-like turrets and a 14th floor that was adorned with eight-foot tall terra cotta moose and buffalo head sculptures. Gargoyles, Canadian-style.

The hotel was big, with 700 rooms, several dining rooms, two ballrooms, a billiard room, shops and offices. And it was a study in elegance, from its three-storey entrance portico to its renowned rooftop garden.

“It was beautiful and grand,” states big band leader Dal Richards, 93.

“They had a Crystal Ballroom, adjoined by what they called Peacock Alley, which was a broad entrance hall that went down the full length of the ballroom. It had antique furniture, oriental rugs and all that sort of thing, brass railings.

“Below that, in the lower level, dancing all year was done in what was called the Spanish Grill. That was the nightclub of the hotel, that’s where the orchestras played.”

If it had survived, this Hotel Vancouver would now be the place to stay in town, a heritage hotel to rank with The Empress in Victoria or The Palace in San Francisco. But it was killed by the falling fortunes of its owner, the Canadian Pacific Railway.

The CPR’s archrival, the Canadian National Railway, had started working on its own hotel at Burrard and Georgia in 1928, but construction stopped after the 1929 stock market crash.

In 1937, the CPR decided to abandon its own hotel and help finish the CN hotel, which opened in 1939 as the third Hotel Vancouver. The two railways then had an awkward arrangement where one managed it one year, the other managed it the next year, until the CPR bowed out of the arrangement in 1963.

After the current Hotel Vancouver opened, the old one was used as a barracks for soldiers during the Second World War, then as a home for returned soldiers after the war. It was torn down in 1949 to make room for a proposed Eaton’s building. Eaton’s didn’t build until the Pacific Centre Mall went up in the late 1960s, so the southwest corner of Georgia and Granville was a big empty lot for two decades. Still, Georgia and Granville was the heart of town during the first half of the 20th century.

2) Across the street from the Hotel Vancouver was the Birks building, an 11-storey Edwardian masterpiece with an elegant terra cotta facade and a graceful curved corner.

“Everybody loved the Birks building,” says Richards.

...

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Vancouve...#ixzz1I7l4Q4in
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted: Mar 30, 2011, 11:04 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,622
our greatest loss


To me, this is perhaps the most blatant and shocking architectural loss the city has ever known. Inside, someone told me, it was just an ordinary building: nothing special.

But that Edwardian design, along with the huge display windows gave it a classy look unlike anything in the city today (argue if you will). I'd LOVE to see a replica rebuilt; as an office tower, condo, what, I don't know.

But a replica, right down to the last tile and window. The interior could and would, of course, be modern and state of the art.

But when the cultural morons running City Hall at the time gleefully left us with what is there today .... need I say more?
__________________
still under Paris skies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted: Mar 30, 2011, 11:30 PM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 25,341
well the city has over reacted by making it harder i think and we are stuck with things on the heritage list that are so ugly and should be demolished but can't be
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted: Mar 31, 2011, 1:24 AM
entheosfog's Avatar
entheosfog entheosfog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
well the city has over reacted by making it harder i think and we are stuck with things on the heritage list that are so ugly and should be demolished but can't be
like what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted: Mar 31, 2011, 1:25 AM
entheosfog's Avatar
entheosfog entheosfog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
Vancouver’s lost landmarks

Many of the city’s historic buildings have fallen to the wrecker’s ball over the last 125 years

...

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Vancouve...#ixzz1I7l4Q4in
Can you post the whole article, the link doesn't work. I'm really interested in seeing what the other 8 are. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted: Mar 31, 2011, 1:41 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 25,341
the link is gone now

it was on google news - maybe it will come back
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted: Mar 31, 2011, 1:44 AM
SpongeG's Avatar
SpongeG SpongeG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Coquitlam/Rainbow Lake
Posts: 25,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by entheosfog View Post
like what?
i don't know specifically but a lot of stuff from the 50's - there was an article a while back when the city lamented the losses of the past and really tightened up things and in doing so a lot of ugly is safe now and the tome was maybe the city went overboard to make up for past losses - it was quite a long time ago - probably in the 90's when i read it and we maybe stuck with some stuff in the future that doesn't deserve the protection
__________________
belowitall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted: Mar 31, 2011, 1:51 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpongeG View Post
i don't know specifically but a lot of stuff from the 50's - there was an article a while back when the city lamented the losses of the past and really tightened up things and in doing so a lot of ugly is safe now and the tome was maybe the city went overboard to make up for past losses - it was quite a long time ago - probably in the 90's when i read it and we maybe stuck with some stuff in the future that doesn't deserve the protection
Vancouver's heritage preservation laws are incredibly lax, compared to places like New York or London.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted: Mar 31, 2011, 2:56 AM
invisibleairwaves's Avatar
invisibleairwaves invisibleairwaves is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cloverhole, Surrey, BC
Posts: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Vancouver's heritage preservation laws are incredibly lax, compared to places like New York or London.
Comparing our laws to New York and especially London is ridiculous considering how much more historical value is in those cities compared to Vancouver.

Vancouver's a very, very young city. If you want old architecture, you're much better off going somewhere else. Yes, there's a few culturally significant buildings worth preserving, but there's no point worrying about every example of Edwardian architecture or whatever. Stick to the buildings that actually have some sort of cultural value, plus maybe a couple of the prettier ones.
__________________
Reticulating Splines
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted: Mar 31, 2011, 11:03 PM
trofirhen's Avatar
trofirhen trofirhen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,622
who cares ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by invisibleairwaves View Post
Comparing our laws to New York and especially London is ridiculous considering how much more historical value is in those cities compared to Vancouver.

Vancouver's a very, very young city. If you want old architecture, you're much better off going somewhere else. Yes, there's a few culturally significant buildings worth preserving, but there's no point worrying about every example of Edwardian architecture or whatever. Stick to the buildings that actually have some sort of cultural value, plus maybe a couple of the prettier ones.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I agree with what you say about New York, London, their greater history and such. It is also true that one will find many more examples - even limiting it to one type of architecture, in this case Edwardian period buildings - there, and in cities like San Francisco and Chicago, to name two.

The Birks building was elegance, representative of its time, and it gave a tone to the CBD that is not there now, even with other older heritage buildings like the Vancouver block, next to where Birks used to be.

However what I think you do not appreciate (others may or may not) is the fact that such a building as the Birks, with classy, curved-corner, Edwardian façade, is therefore even a greater loss. There was only one building like it, and that was its own self.

As such, this represents a far greater and more significant, for Vancouver, heritage loss. When it was torn down, there was intense opposition, but down it came. Perhaps you prefer what is there now? I do not, but I accept it because it's impossible to do otherwise. But I feel a great pang of loss about the Birks, nevertheless.
__________________
still under Paris skies
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted: Mar 31, 2011, 11:22 PM
sacrifice333 sacrifice333 is offline
Vancouver User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,211
In keeping with the theme...

Quote:
Dining and drinking in the sky: Vancouver's great lost penthouse restaurants and bars

On top of the world, with a martini


BY JOHN MACKIE, VANCOUVER SUN DECEMBER 9, 2010 COMMENTS (16)


STORYPHOTOS ( 15 )


VANCOUVER -- When Playboy magazine decided to make Vancouver’s Pamela Gordon its first Canadian playmate in 1962, photographer Ken Honey chose to shoot her at two Vancouver landmarks: the Capilano Suspension Bridge and the Top of the Towers restaurant/bar in the West End.

The Cap Suspension Bridge is still reeling in tourists by the busload. But the Top of the Towers is long gone, converted to apartments on the 22nd floor of the Georgian Towers at 1450 West Georgia.

Its fate is similar to many of Vancouver’s old rooftop hangouts, which were the coolest spots in town in the ‘50s and ‘60s but have all but vanished today.

The Hotel Vancouver closed its famed Panorama Roof in 1996. The Blue Horizon’s Top of the Horizon was converted to banquet rooms in 1985. The Sylvia Hotel closed its top-floor restaurant in 1967, after decades of inviting customers to “dine in the sky” above English Bay.

The slogan is amusing by today’s standards, because The Sylvia is only eight storeys high. But the 1912 hotel was the highest building in the West End until it was supplanted by Georgian Towers in 1956.

In any event, the trend for sky-high dining and drinking establishments goes back decades.

“They were all over the continent,” recalls big band musician Dal Richards, who had a house gig at the Panorama Roof from 1940 to 1965.



Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Dining+d...#ixzz1IDqhY3ks
__________________
Check out TripStyler.com {locally focused travel blog} | My Flickr {Development Photos} | My instagram {Life Photos} | Vancouver Autos Tumblr {Solo Parking Photos}
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Urban, Urban Design & Heritage Issues
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.