I was in Vancouver at a conference for the weekend. I've been to Vancouver a dozen times, and my opinion of the city has changed over the years, as I've lived in different places. When I lived in Toronto, Vancouver (the city) seemed small, and unimpressive. Don't get me wrong, the landscape and scenery is gorgeous (when you can see it through the fog) but the actual urban setting didn't live up to my experiences having traveled through the US extensively and a little bit in Europe. Perhaps I had high expectations.
This time I was impressed. The hustle and stir created by the Olympics has certainly given the city some more energy, but that wasn't the reason I was impressed.
After living in Edmonton for the past few years, I've gotten used to the smaller city experience. When I first moved here I was always surprised by how new everything is, and how there are hardly any historic buildings. I mean, in Ontario I grew up in a farm house built in the 1840's, and that wasn't particularly old compared to some of the neighbouring homes. It just seems that there is less of an appreciation for history here.
Now I understand much of Alberta is new, but how much of that new stuff was built where there used to be a beautiful old structure of some type? So much of this city has been plowed over to build something bigger and better and newer that there is hardly any evidence that the city existed 50 years ago (let alone 100). I think there is a small movement, to appreciate older structures, such as the conversion of warehouse spaces into lofts. But from my perspective the general philosophy it's demolish and rebuild.
Vancouver is a newer city as well, but there is certainly evidence of the old city in Gastown and Yaletown (and other places as well). The other thing that struck me is where there were new buildings, you found interesting architecture, park spaces and lots of fountains and artwork. The buildings are bright and airy with lots of glass, not plain and concrete.
I was excited to learn last year that a 99-year old brick building in downtown Edmonton that had been damaged by fire was going to be preserved and converted into condos. The plan was to maintain the brick exterior, and build a condo project inside and over the old structure. The developer has recently applied to alter the plans. They claim with higher construction costs and a slower condo market the project is no longer economically feasible. The developer would now like to remove the brick and ``attempt`` to put them back up after completing the new structure.
The second problem is that building has been sitting there fire damaged and unpreserved for three years, so the brick is starting to deteriorate.
What a shame!!! The city has the option to deny any changes to the plan, but then the building will just continue to sit and deteriorate until there is nothing left to save. Can`t somebody think outside the box a little here? Isn`t there another way to make the project economically feasible? Perhaps they could mix commercial or retail space on the lower floors and put condos on top. What about hotel space? There`s got to be a better solution than tearing down the building. Perhaps we should call a developer from Vancouver for help.
Recent Comments