It could be the biggest ‘architectural deconstruction’ event in Vancouver in years: the demolition of the Empire Landmark.
The hotel, once known as the Sheraton Landmark, is closing on September 30 after a 44-year run. Designed by Bill Lort in that early 1970s exposed-concrete style, let’s face it, few will miss it – except maybe memories of good times in the revolving restaurant.
The story goes that the Wosk Brothers, Morris and Ben, were in competition to build the highest tower at the time – and Ben won with the 40-storey Landmark over the 30-storey Blue Horizon.
The Landmark will be replaced by two condos that will look something like this:
There’s a suggestion that the Landwork will be imploded – an always-exciting prospect for those who like to see things go boom. It’s not unprecedented in this corridor: a 1967 tower in the Pacific Palisades complex, just behind the Blue Horizon, got turned into ash and debris within minutes in 1994 – as you can see here:
The whole demolition and project is a classic symbol of everything that’s wrong with Vancouver. Condos, condos über alles!
To sell to foreigners, who will never live or work here. Sounds like great urban planning.
Sounds like the free market.
A good example of a particular era of architecture to be demolished for a horribly vapid, instantly dated version of contemporary architecture.
A “good example of a particular era of architecture”? That’s generous. The Empire Landmark is and always been a brutalist dog of a building. Its replacements are no great shakes either, but not every building can be the Taj Mahal. If any building lasts long enough, it will revered.
So cheer up and give these condos a chance. If they last 40 years, future commenters will be chaining themselves to their foyers to keep them from being demolished, cherished heirlooms and good examples of their particular architectural eras that they are.
That’s right Dan, celebrate Vancouver: The City Disposable. Never mind how much material will end up in a landfill, along with hundreds of jobs. And at least we have some nice high priced luxury new hotel rooms to replace them nearby in the Trump Tower. Who wants those icky middle class tourists anyway, they won’t shop at all the high priced new boutiques on Alberti.
Alberni !
I’m not going to complain because somebody wants to build new housing. You are correct that all standard construction is inherently wasteful, but that’s no reason to keep up an ugly old hotel whose economic and/or structural viability neither of us know anything about. If somebody wants to pay for the old building, tear it down, and put up a new one, that’s his or her business. If you’re so concerned about the loss of this urban gem, outbid the developer and preserve the hotel forever. Think how great it will be to gaze upon its blinding purity for all time and know you are the heroic soul who saved it.
Yeah Dan, there’s no reason to keep up an ugly old hotel whose economic and/or structural viability nobody knows anything about:
http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploads/r/null/8/6/866693/041486e3-e33c-4963-8021-d20e42ffe3c4-A24811.jpg
Vancouver keeps repeating the mistakes of the past, in it’s neverending quest to remain a real estate shill’s dream.
Gotta tell ya that replacement doesn’t look much better. Same new.
We’ll regret demolishing this building. Vancouver has so little variety in its towers. This tower is something different and stands out from more generic towers from its era. I like to think of it like a Ford Pinto or AMC Gremlin. Sure, they were awful cars, but there’s a certain novelty “cool” factor there because they are so different.
I’ll admit that it’s not the prettiest building, but it’s distinctive and adds something novel to the skyline and to the city (the revolving restaurant) and replaces it with another rectangular glass box like any one of the other 50 million identical ones popping up everywhere. We are losing a commercial use (i.e. jobs) and gaining a residential one (i.e. foreign investment property.)
Normally I would cheer the addition of any new housing, but there are plenty of lower density sites around there that are better targets for intensification. Overall this is a net loss for the city.
I’ve always hoped this building would be demolished! This building is definitely an eyesore I won’t miss. Being built to 1970s building codes, it’s also a danger in the event of an earthquake, so I’m glad we’ll be replacing it with something safer.
I understand concerns about affordable housing and hotel space/jobs etc., but I don’t understand why anyone would want to keep around ugly, unsafe, inferior buildings just because they happen to be here. We’ve learned a lot about how to make greener, safer, more comfortable, nicer looking buildings in the past few decades and we should embrace that.