- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.

Vancouver's Architectural Revival
Behind the shiny surfaces there is a public logic guided by City Hall policies.
[Editor's note: This is excerpted from A Guidebook to Contemporary Architecture in Vancouver, just published by Douglas and McIntyre. A second excerpt on Vancouver as 'supermodel,' by Matthew Soules, runs next week.]
On Aug. 7, 1971, officers on horseback charged into a crowd in Gastown, the original downtown core of Vancouver, and swung their batons at the thousand people who had gathered or wandered there to protest marijuana laws and the nefarious police tactics used to enforce them. At the intersection of Abbott and Cordova, marchers and onlookers were beaten or hauled into paddywagons and the public gathering soon transformed into what became known as the Gastown Riot, one of the most notorious brawls in the city's history. In the years that followed, the neighbourhood withered, its zoning geared towards the tawdry tourist outlets that would long dominate it, its days as a gathering site all but over.
Making architecture is, at its core, a political action. Implicit in the design approach is the decision to encourage or thwart public gatherings, nurture or displace the poor, ignite or asphyxiate street life, rabble-rouse or calm the streets for paying visitors. At first glance, the shiny newness of central Vancouver suggests a manifesto of clarity and order, a divergence from the fiery social consciousness of decades past. (To sample that sensation, comb through the photo essay of buildings accompanying this essay.)
Underlying these images of finesse and resolve, however, are backstories of complex negotiations between public and private interests whose endgame is the greater public good. With increased density allowance as the currency, the resulting deals have spawned an unprecedented array of community centres, daycares, parks, public art and social housing.
Gastown's current robust and widely inclusive revival owes much to City Hall -- the very institution that had sanctioned the police bullying and subsequent neighbourhood stagnation in the first place. The most conspicuous participant in this revival is Woodward's, an inventive reconstruction of the old department store into a fusion of slick condo tower, social housing, art school and community centre. The public-good aspect of the project -- restoration of certain heritage components and rental units for lower-income residents -- has only been possible through density bonusing, which afforded the developer the right to build higher and tighter, in exchange for embedding inclusivity into the complex.
Where to be public?
Vancouver had suffered from architectural indifference and a dearth of public space long before the Gastown melee. Whether commercial or domestic, the early colonial-flavoured architecture did not lend itself to generating a public realm. Stanley Park and the waterfront became the dominant public amenity largely by default. Lacking centrifugal force and architectural frontage, the seawall is more promenade than piazza, with its linear circulation that resists spontaneous interaction. It is a fine space for exercising, or for watching a running spool of human faces. It is not the kind of space that is conducive to either quiet contemplation or expressions of civic discontent.
Following Vancouver's benchmark hosting of a World Exposition in 1986, a new wave of collective urban consciousness emerged. As the idealism and power of individual clients and their architects waned, the impetus for creating new public spaces rose up from the same development forces that in the past often threatened to destroy the public inheritance. Moated by water and mountain, and an agricultural land reserve, the city quite simply had run out of land to build on.
With developers now dependent on the grace of City Hall to build up and inward, rather than ever outward, the City Hall now had a newly powerful tool-kit of zoning policies. Henceforth, citizens at large would have an ownership stake in the city skyline and vista, a stake to which the financier of a bulky office tower would now defer.
The belief in the collective ownership of the city's dramatic natural vista translated into the 1989 mandating of 'view corridors,' zoning which preserved glimpses of mountains and oceans for wayfarers in the centre of the city. So saturated is the architectural buildup in the city centre that, in Vancouver, the common meaning of 'corridor' is not the hallway inside a building, but the ever-more-rare lane of visual space that remains outside of it.
Density as a traded commodity
The complement to view-corridor policy evolved into the wholesale acceptance of the density bonus transfer system in the 1990s. The basic premise was to proffer the right to build higher and denser than the zoning book allowed, if in exchange the developers would bankroll a park, heritage restoration, community centre, social housing or other public project. Parks and outdoor sculpture and heritage restoration began to flourish as a by-product of development. The process challenged the notion that park space, art galleries, and community centres were a frill and redefined them an essential component of a city. Developers would henceforth be expected as a matter of civic responsibility to partner with the city in order to enhance, rather than merely augment, the built environment.
Woodward's, the Electra Building retrofit, the Wall and Shangri-La towers, GRANtable, Coal Harbour and the Contemporary Art Gallery are all examples of architecture that has either been a donor or beneficiary of the density bonusing mechanism. What this policy tool-kit allows is the creation of an architecture that finds a path around the ruthlessness and indifference of the marketplace. That midcentury masterpiece, the former B.C. Electric headquarters, could find new life only as a residential tower. But its spacious hallways and elegant tile mosaic and meticulous retrofitting would have been doomed within an indifferent marketplace in which condominium units are bought and sold like stock options.
The architectural stock of Vancouver has made many of its residents -- and also a good number of faraway investors -- desperately rich, so much so that $18-million has become a kind of signifier price for a tower's penthouse, the masthead that brands it as a building worth buying into.
At the new Shangri-La tower, unlike Woodward's and Coal Harbour, there are no on-site amenities for the low-income; its ground floor is dominated by a boutique food store while its restaurant is a five-star dining and paying experience.
Shangri-La does, however, contribute to the public realm in major ways: aesthetically (it raises the bar for the otherwise-banal glass towers in the vicinity); financially (its developer 'bought' the density by paying for heritage restoration elsewhere); culturally (by providing an ancillary public sculpture court for the Vancouver Art Gallery); and environmentally (through the cultivation of a compact onsite forestland to offset carbon deficits). The game of trades and rewards extends beyond the material fact of building to encompass the full spectrum of human activity.
The Downtown Eastside, Woodward's and gentrification
Not far from this gleaming copse of downtown towers is its urban counterpoint, the Downtown Eastside. Once the affluent city centre, this century-old neighbourhood has devolved into one of the most impoverished and troubled communities in the country, but one with fierce local pride and sense of ownership. Architecturally ambitious social housing -- Bruce Eriksen Place, Lore Krill Housing Co-Operative, the Portland Hotel Society, and others -- convey a message that housing remains for all of us a crucial program: that local residents are also full citizens. And the message is conveyed not only directly to the surrounding citizens but also through the experience of the city to more cosseted, comfortable neighbourhoods.
Woodward's itself is now a bulwark against the gentrification or touristification juggernaut, hard-wired as it is to house a variety of socio-demographic categories.
Beyond the complex array of building uses, the developer also bankrolled the project's centrepiece installation: an eight-by-13-metre mural by renowned Vancouver artist Stan Douglas. Composed from over 50 separate photographs that have been enlarged and superimposed, the tableau depicts frantic young protesters being harassed and beaten by baton-wielding cops, with the old Woodward building in the background. It's the Gastown Riot, re-imagined, and anyone can view it by walking into the publicly accessible foyer. Here the historical record is rendered as carefully framed urban scenery for a new generation.
The mural's terse geographic title, Abbott & Cordova, 7 August 1971, is more appropriate and more forgiving than entitling it The Gastown Riot. By honouring the intersection with its title, it suggests that while ideologies and rhetoric and city-hall regimes inevitably come and go, our city streets -- and our will to inhabit them -- will last a much longer time. ![]()












12
Login or register to post comments
the real ODB
1 year ago
it raises the bar?
Are you kidding me?The Shangri-La is just another ugly, boring building that seems to be the status quo for this city. Enough of this crap already. Look around at other cities and see what real buildings should look like.
speedo
1 year ago
I don't know about architecture...
but I know that there's nothing man-made in Vancouver that's as pleasing to look at as the North Shore mountains.
peasant43
1 year ago
bankrolling developers
I'm glad Vancouver will be a nicer place to look it.
Unfortunately I'll need a seven-figure income or a third job to live close enough to appreciate it.
Guess I'll have to buy the book.
sassamatt
1 year ago
Delusions of Grandeur
Vancouver as beautiful as it is with its great setting is not an architectural wonder, nor is it really a liveable city. The only people would push this illusion are developers and those that profit from the developers, such as the major newspapers and media outlets, etc.
It is in fact an over developed and excessively dense place. That is impossible to live in unless you are not extremely well healed. In these developed areas their are increased environmental problems, higher crime, higher suicide rates and lack of community. Yet, the printed media says otherwise?
Ramone
1 year ago
More suburban than urban
I agree that the mountains and the ocean make Vancouver "beautiful".
The city itself is rather drab and boring. Outside of downtown it is not very densely populated, but a depressing carpet of mediocre architecture and suburban sprawl.
It very definitely suffers from delusions of grandeur...or maybe the constant barrage of self-praise is compensation for an underlying inferiority complex?
Either way, it's expensive, vapid, and overrated. (With a few redeeming qualities that make life here bearable.)
dave49
1 year ago
City of Glass and its economy
Almost anyone I meet who is new to Vancouver has one question hanging over them, "will I ever be able to afford a home of my own?" Vancouver has a lot going for it, but a very narrow and limited economy that's become a classic example of the modern two-tiered work force: Large numbers of poorly-paid service workers and a small group of people with elite skills who earn high salaries. The middle class has been mostly squeezed out.
A key problem is that we've done such a great job of selling our livability that we've attracted more highly skilled people than the economy can absorb. The result is underemployment and unemployment. And with the recent downturn, some fell from the skilled sector and found themselves scrambling in the service sector to survive.
As for the 'City of Glass' as some have dubbed it, do we really want this collection of totally different buildings. And will this system of density bonuses continue to be abused as it has been by some developers?
The dark side is the staggering prices, where a single house in the West Side cost more than f___ing Manhattan! THere is something clearly wrong with this picture, yet the madness continues.
RickW
1 year ago
speedo
And the architecture of the city should play upon this, instead of trying to eclipse it.
Bobby Peru
1 year ago
On a Clear Day I can see....banality
Clearly, the author of this article needs glasses and needs to take a course in the economics of great architecture. None of the buildings she mentions would be called iconic or imaginative design by any architecture critic. Only Vancouver's sales oriented developers are hyping the blight she is calling great buildings.
Great architecture is only realized with great patronage. In the great cities of the world like NYC, London, Paris, wealthy companies built inspiring headquarters. A quick examination of the great city buildings around the world yields office buildings and few residences. Vancouver is not a home to many corporations so our great skyscrapers, so to speak, are residential buildings. Hardly a source of motivation for inspiration. After scrolling through the slideshow above I yawned. Yaletown is just a pathetic crop of monotonous glass towers.
Woodwards was a necessary compromise by developers on the inevitable road to gentrifying the downtown east side. There's no economic sense in letting the homeless occupy such expensive property. Eventually, they'll be forced out. We'll see how long the honest folks can put up with the crime from junkie neighbours.
snert
1 year ago
Vancouver
Doesn't have architecture, with the exception of the main library.
RickW
1 year ago
How does Vancouver compare....?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/504274@N22/pool/
http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENCA339&q=modern+german+architecture&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=Cz0pTJSvOZShnweygoyEAQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQsAQwAA
http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENCA339&q=modern+french+architecture&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=RD0pTLumFo6HnQeXlsyhAQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQsAQwAA
Just me
1 year ago
Everyone's a critic
Vancouver has been transformed in a mere 40 years, following the arrival of planning director Ray Spaxman, who set in motion the socially conscious but also practical process that has given us the city of today.
Is it perfect, and are all or any of the new towers and other forms (False Creek, etc.) "world-class" architectural statements? Maybe not, but neither is Vancouver a financial hub on the order of London and New York. So the question becomes: Have we done the best we could to meet the demands of diverse populations with a great range of means, from those who would buy an $18-million penthouse to the near-homeless of the DTES? I think the answer is, yes, we have done pretty well, all things seen in balance.
Reading so many posts about the so-called banality of recent housing stock (that has been so successful in this marketplace) it is difficult to determine if the writers are coming from a perspective of progressive social action or simple envy of larger, older cities. So what that we are not London? This is Vancouver, the little logging town that could, and continues to, answer the issues of livability with beauty, of a built environment that manages to leave the natural environment as it was as much as possible given that people keep wanting to move here.
Everyone's a critic, as they have every right to be. But thanks to an activist civic ethic that started at City Hall 40 years ago and dragged for-profit developers into the process, better buildings got built and, along with them, a better city. Not perfect, but better than all the armchair kvetchers have any right to enjoy.
chickeee
1 year ago
Vancouver arch style
is defined by the monotonous condos I guess. I remember standing at false creek south PRE EXPO looking to the city and seeing clearly the mountain vista ... and now if you're at the foot of the Cambie bridge at 7th coming into the downtown what do you see ?