Skip to content

Squatting in ‘Vancouverism’: Public art & architecture after the Winter Olympics 1/3

PDF copy of this article: ingram-2010-squatting-in-vancouverism1

Ken Lum’s from shangri-la to shangri-la, 2010 site-specific installation, Vancouver, photograph by Gordon Brent Ingram

Part 1 of 3

Public art was part of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver; there was some funding, some media coverage, and a few sites were transformed. What were the new spaces created and modes of cultural production, in deed the use of culture in Vancouver, that have emerged in this winter of the Olympics? What lessons can be offered, if any, to other contemporary arts and design communities in Canada and elsewhere? And there was such celebration of Vancouver, that a fuzzy construct was articulated for ‘Vancouverism’ that today has an unresolved and sometimes pernicious relationship between cultural production and the dynamics between public and privatizing art. In this essay, I explore when, so far, ‘Vancouverism’[i] has become a cultural, design, ‘planning’, or ideological movement and when the term has been more of a foil for marketing over-priced real estate.[ii] In particular, I am wondering what, in these supposedly new kinds of Vancouveristic urban designs, are the roles, ‘the place’ of public and other kinds of site-based art.

The new Woodward’s towers and the restored Woodward’s W sign from the historic centre of 19th Century Vancouver at Carrall and Water Street, January 2010, photograph by Gordon Brent Ingram

January and February 2010 were the months to separate fact from fiction and ideas from hyperbole. By the end of February’s Winter Olympics, the mounting bills and utter repetitiveness of Vancouver’s self-promotion[iii] already cast a shadow over the notion that the city was ever ready to be any sort urban example.[iv] Bandied about were a few principles, even the bare bones of a future manifesto. What were are the ideas and what were the actual achievements? Over the last century, Vancouver has been a centre for an array of social movements and ideological projects from the more utopian union organizing of the IWW, the Industrial Workers of the World, to a curiously effective advocacy of smaller numbers of people sharing beds and bedrooms to the activism of Greenpeace spawned in Kitsilano in the 1970s. Moving into the second decade of a new century, a few of the City of Vancouver’s planning policies, along with the modernist sensibilities of a handful of architects, are being branded as a movement for sustainability through the emphasis on residential towers. But this talk of ‘Vancouverism’ comes at a time when many city cores throughout the world have already attained higher human densities more elegantly and with less severe ecological footprints. More troubling is the contradiction that much of the innovative architecture in Vancouver has been lower density and often better serves suburban than core urban neighbourhoods. In contrast, the supposedly Vancouveristic towers are repetitive, rarely involve lead designers who are locally based, generate heavy ecological footprints, will be increasingly expensive to maintain, and have included few technological innovations. And Greater Vancouver has as much sprawl as any other North American city.

The Woodward’s Building complex, under construction and before the atrium was erected, in mid-2009.

In the recently marketed notions of ‘Vancouverism’, the roles of the city’s public spaces, hard-fought notions of social justice, and contemporary art-making, involving sectors and movements often at odds with the towers built and marketed by a remarkably small number of transnational investors, remain unresolved. A few events in January and February, in the redeveloped Woodward’s Building, the hallowed Western Front, and further afield, provide clues as to what work has been based on well-researched history and theory, what is the innovative design, what is advertising, and what is provincial hype. The opening of Trevor Boddy’s exhibit, Vancouverism, in Vancouver’s new Woodward’s atrium on the 15th of January 2010 coincided with the unveiling of Stan Douglas’s massive photo-based mural, “Abbott & Cordova, 7 August 1971,” recalling the Gastown (police) Riots[v]; the recent completion of the two residential towers designed by Gregory Henriquez and developed by Ian Gillespie, structures that support both public housing units and tony condos; and the first use of Simon Fraser University’s cavernous, Fei and Milton Wong Experimental Theatre where various figures such as Henriquez and Gillespie lounged and self-congratulated. On the same evening, the reconstructed tower with the Woodward’s neon ‘W’, was lit and was turning for the first time in over 15 years.

The 15 January, 2010 celebration for the opening of the Woodward’s Building, the unveiling of the Stan Douglas mural, “Abbott and Cordova, 7th August 1971 2009,” the first use of the Simon Fraser University’s Fei and Milton Wong Experimental Theatre, and the restoration of the ‘W’ (for Woodward’s) turning sign. photograph by Gordon Brent Ingram

A week after the Woodward’s celebrations, a more critical discussion of the role of architecture and public art in neighbourhood regeneration, Coming Soon: Negotiating the Expectations of Art in the Public Sphere[vi], was held as the first symposium of the just-opened Audain Gallery of Simon Fraser University @ Woodward’s. Coming Soon began to publicly explore the implications for the expansion of cultural infrastructure in the Woodward’s complex along with neighbourhood gentrification, the growing privatization of public space, the shortage of low-income housing, and homelessness. A week later, another symposium was held, Learning From Vancouver, at The Western Front and asked another set of questions about the limits of architectures of high-density redevelopment and the making of site-based art within the context of pressured real estate markets.[vii]

Shadowing these events in January was the recent publication of an essay by Trevor Boddy entitled “Vision Deficit”[viii] that articulated a profound critique of Vancouver’s urban planning and design establishment. But while Boddy celebrated ‘Vision Deficit’ at the January 15th opening of Vancouverism, he was already backpedalling from his core arguments.[ix] Given Boddy’s central role in articulating a theory of Vancouverism, the curious contradictions between the Vancouverism exhibit, Vision Deficit The Essay, and what Boddy has stated in subsequent weeks warrants a closer look. And as almost a challenge to the erasures embodied in much of Olympics-synchronized Vancouverism was the installation of Ken Lum’s comment on Vancouver’s shift to neoliberal architecture, from shangri-la to shangri-la[x], with three, doll-house-like replicas of historic squatters shacks placed at the foot of a new hotel and condominium tower that was also the product of the same Woodward’s developer, Ian Gillespie. Untying this knot of contradictions from a winter of aggrandizement, historical referencing (and revisionism), boosterism, and ideological horse-trading is important given the pressures to redefine Vancouver after the Olympics and the inevitable contraction, and potential implosion, in the Canadian real estate bubble.[xi] And in the midst of the Olympics spectacle were some lyrical and under-reported interventions as part of the Bright Light arts festival that brought “together the creative energy of fourteen arts organizations active in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside”[xii] in manners that often said more about the urban texture of Vancouver than the pronouncements from the architect developers.

Representation of the Woodward’s Building project, as viewed aerially from the south-east, from the website of Henriquez Partners http://www.henriquezpartners.com/

The Woodward’s Building as Concretizing Ideology

January 2010’s Vancouverism danced around an unfinished complex, the redeveloped Woodward’s Building: two new towers, a constructed department façade of a department store, and a performing arts centre. Not coincidentally, much of Vancouverism, as it has been articulated so far, is a celebration of a particular kind of public-private partnership where an exceptional amount of public funds went to developers to build 400 low income, public housing units while allowing some handsome profits to be made on sales of the adjacent condominium units. Now, Woodward’s is also being marketed ideologically as an effective mode of creation of low income housing, by private developers, when less than a generation ago Canadian public agencies were supporting far more community oriented housing designs and getting units built more economically. But that was before a wave of neoliberalism conjured that private enterprise was more effective at spending public funds. And it remains to be seen whether or not such mixed housing will contribute to or slow gentrification in Gastown as part of the amorphous, Downtown Eastside.

The new buildings in the Woodward’s complex, designed by Gregory Henriquez[xiii] were not even completed before they were being celebrated as a success. Initial audits related for social use, which Henriquez estimates at “4,000 people a day on site, living, working, shopping, playing, making art and using community services at Woodward’s[xiv] as well as any contributions towards sustainability, especially in relationship to other new towers being built in other parts of the world, are a year or two away. Such supposed successes are more credibly declared after several years of evaluation – especially for a concept and design with severe deficiencies in terms of its its long shadow in a neighbourhood already starved for winter light and its highly debateable contributions to heritage conservation[xv] and to sustainability transitions. So the Woodward’s ’space’, in particular the line between private and public where the Vancouverism exhibition was presented, remains contested and under ongoing examination.

At the unveiling fete on January 15th, such words as ‘rebirth’ (as in of the neighbourhood) and ‘collaboration’ (as in huge transfers of public resources to private developers) were invoked. Trevor Boddy went on to use terms such as ‘mission’, ‘utopian’, and ‘mix of uses’ stating, “Even by our standards, Woodward’s is not normal. It took extraordinary dedication” [for private developers to insist on such excessive public subsidies]. Boddy sang Third Way incantations such as “function of healing” and “to make a liberal, inclusive state.” There was a sprinkling of references to modernist visionary, Arthur Erickson, Vancouver’s saint of concrete, and his 1955 high-density vision for the Vancouver Peninsula, Plan 56. [xvi]

“Proposal for the redevelopment of the West End of Vancouver,” Arthur Erickson, 1955, January and February, 2010 exhibit, “Vancouverism” curated by Trevor Boddy, Woodward’s Building Atrium (drawing courtesy Erickson Collection Architectural Archive, University of Calgary)

Later on the evening of the 15th at the Fei and Milton Wong Experimental Theatre, the discussions become more cautious. Bathed in pink light on a white leather couch, developer Ian Gillespie noted that the extent of the long-term success of the Woodward’s complex, especially for mixing low and high income groups, will “depend on the effectiveness of mental health programmes” – a pointed comment at a time when provincial cuts are putting the disabled, especially those with compromised mental health, increasingly at risk. Harkening back to Vancouver’s boom and bust economy of a century and half century ago, the celebration on January 15th seemed to be more about the project having gotten as far as being near completion without running out of money – with supposedly 92% of closure of sales on the luxury condo units having taken place on schedule. Or was some celebrating about the fact that the developer had supposedly made a relatively high level of profit on subsidized housing? Or was there something profound about a kinder, gentler form of neoliberalism with even greater transfers of public resources to private developers? This was the rather dire form of urban utopianism in Vancouver in the winter of 2010.

The root of any authentic celebration, on the evening of January 15th, was that various governments and developers had ever collaborated at all, in the early 21st Century, for the sake of low-income housing. In this way, the 21st Century Woodward’s came full circle with the original Woodward constructions, the first department store on Canada’s West Coast of a century earlier, which displaced and destroyed small businesses on the block.[xvii] A closer look at this so-called ‘body heat’[xviii] mode of gentrification, of using a particularly wide set of government subsidies from municipal variations (that are eventually paid for by municipal ratepayers) to education funding as in the case of the Simon Fraser University gallery and theatre to grants to artists projects, to repopulated a declining neighbourhood, infers a responsibility to a community – especially when the government funding for the low-income housing, that provides homes for but a few artists, has been provided at effectively above-market returns. In other words, the developer of Woodward’s made money off of subsidies to the arts in at least three different ways: in funding directly to arts facilities [involving funds that were then transferred to the developer], through supposedly bringing more artists back into the neighbourhood through being paid to build low-income housing [involving more funds to be transferred to the developer], and through marketing the repackaging of these social subsidies as effective community amenities as crucial to the private marketing of the hundreds of still very expensive and small condo apartments [that lead to even more funds being transferred to the developer].

While this supposedly privately financed model of gentrification-through-cultural-infrastructure is now being applied in nearly every major city on earth, the public money that went into pay for ’space’ for the arts, in the Woodward’s building, has undoubtedly been more per square foot than has been seen anywhere at any time. And during this Winter-of-the-Woodward’s-Honeymoon, the unresolved problems of the design of the block, from its impacts on a heritage neighbourhood to blockage of light the difficulties of maintaining such towers efficiently – not unlike the kinds of perennial problems with modernist towers that a few decades back pushed such high density forms of urbanism out of favour – became more and not less evident . But even an article in the relatively progressive website, The Tyee, gushed uncritically.[xix]

model of the Woodward’s redevelopment, Henriquez & Partners Vancouverism exhibit, Vancouver, January 2010 photograph by Gordon Brent Ingram

Consumer dilemmas: Which brand of Vancouverism is worthy buying?

Before exploring some of the specific conversations in Vancouverism it is necessary to examine the development of the term and where it originated and how its usage has shifted and remained malleable. The term ‘Vancouverism’ was first used widely in a 2005 article in the New York Times.

“The surrounding 40-acre area, much of it opened up after highways damaged in the 1989 earthquake were demolished, is to become San Francisco’s most densely populated neighborhood, based on a planning model known as Vancouverism. Named after the city in British Columbia, Vancouverism is characterized by tall, but widely separated, slender towers interspersed with low-rise buildings, public spaces, small parks and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and facades to minimize the impact of a high-density population.”[xx]

At the time of the writing of the 2005 article, the only neighbourhood in Vancouver that fit that description was the Concord Pacific redevelopment along False Creek the lands nearly all of which having been acquired by the Province of British Columbia for Expo 86 and then sold in one block, after a huge amount of public controversy in 1987 and 1988,[xxi] to then Hong Kong-based Concord Pacific. The sales of the early Yaletown towers built by Concord Pacific were lucrative and the controlling figure in the group, Li Ka Shing, had a rapprochement with Beijing and expanded his operations into other parts of China. In the meantime, the Vancouver division was further developed by Stanley Kwok and Bing Thom with their concepts the bases for the urban and building designs. And little more than a decade later, this relatively small neighbourhood (that involved a lot of capital and heavily subsidized mortgages) was being equated with so-called ‘Vancouverism’.

Much of the Vancouverism exhibit, at least the version that was shown at Woodward’s redevelopment in January and February of 2010, celebrated a corporate culture where the work of developers, planners and designers were conflated under the guise of ‘collaboration’. Such a form of neoliberal urbanism affords corporate entities, such as Concord Pacific which also has large projects in Hong Kong and Beijing, the status of architect while effecting side-lining community-based designs and innovations. In the case of Vancouverism as a redevelopment style, more innovative West Coast planning policies and designs of specific buildings and public space that have involved a more diverse set of contributors most not receiving (or effectively giving) funds to multinational developers, are ignored.[xxii] So the supposedly exceptional level of collaboration celebrated in Vancouver codifies a particularly neoliberal notion of planning and design processes and of urbanism in general.

What undermines the credibility of the Vancouverism exhibit is how Trevor Boddy has linked the two decades of bland towers by Concord Pacific with Gregory Henriquez’s efforts to design a more purposefully democratic and innovative spaces. Even more problematic is how Vancouverism and the discourse it generated conflated these high-density residential projects and the relatively small Yaletown neighbourhood with distinct aspects of the overall planning strategy of the City of Vancouver[xxiii] – even though most other cities in the world also have neighbourhoods of residential towers, though they may be better designed and constructed, than those in Vancouver. In other words, there is nothing sufficiently distinctive about to Vancouver’s towers to warrant a badge of exceptionalism such as ‘Vancouverism’. The greatest contradiction in the Vancouverism exhibit at Woodward’s is that most of the important architectural works do not include, and even suggest a counter narrative to, residential towers especially the 1983 redevelopment of Robson Square by Arthur Erickson and Cornelia Oberlander, Erickson’s 1976 Museum of Anthropology. And many of these projects are for relatively low buildings (such as most of those at the Olympic Village) with many quite a distance from the areas of towers in Vancouver’s core.

So if the works in Vancouverism do not conform to the definition of Vancouverism, what do they describe? Other than Erickson’s Museum of Anthropology, most of the designs barely work with or celebrate respective sites – within Vancouver’s spectacular landscape. Views, both those afforded and those removed, by projects are poorly described (suggesting that they were poorly considered in respective design processes). And few of these projects other than the Olympic Village[xxiv] that is still being audited, engage seriously in current or past standards for sustainability such as the LEED certification system. But well after many Vancouver architects began engaging in sustainability transitions, most of the designers included the Vancouverism exhibited were avoided engaging in standards such as LEED. To the rest of the country and world, the whole notion of Vancouverism as based on the evidence in this exhibit begins to smell of a stale kind of provincialism brought out of a cupboard for guests coming for the Winter Olympics.

It is a relief that in Boddy’s pantheon of local corporate architecture, he mercifully relieves us, in Vancouverism, of mention of the works of the Paul Merrick group that was publicly chastised not so long ago.[xxv] In contrast, the absence, from Vancouverism, of celebrated West Coast figures, most notably Bill Pechet and Stephanie Robb[xxvi] whose work spans a range of design disciplines, is problematic and suggests Boddy recycling the cronyism that afflicted the West Coast modernism for so long. Similarly, the absence of examples of the wealth of contemporary West Coast landscape architects, so deeply engaged with sites and sustainability, as well as innovative residential architects is problematic. Worse, Vancouverism the exhibit is obstructive to explorations of the wealth of innovative design and urbanism in the region. With so much missing, I am forced to wonder whether or not the relatively high degree of `private’ financial support for the Vancouverism exhibits, from London to Paris to Vancouver, by Woodward’s developer Ian Gillespie[xxvii], has constrained critical discussion of the work in the exhibit – including Erickson’s.

There is another problem in the Vancouverism exhibit that suggests historical revisionism. It remains to be determined how much of central Vancouver’s pedestrian-oriented, higher density character was the product of a supposedly enlightened partnership through architects being dominated by developers. A well-established historical narrative, one that is well-substantiated, describes how much of central Vancouver has been more the product of the municipal political economy coping with a wave of community activism in the 1960s and 1970s that precluded a system of freeways, limited mass evictions for redevelopment, and than initially put significant constraints on the designs of Concord Pacific. While Boddy has argued that the Vancouverism exhibit was something of a correction for what he has stated as excessive credit given developers and planners, with insufficient acknowledgement of pioneering architects such as Erickson[xxviii], the murkiness of the relationships between planning parameters, design process, and developer bottom lines continues to become more opaque the more talked up is so-called Vancouverism.

After visiting the Vancouverism exhibit a score of times, I was left with the question of whether or not the few substantive principles teased out of the examples are more those of the architects or more those of Boddy as the theoretician. Has Boddy’s interpretation of Vancouverism simply been enabling a group of architects and developers at the expense of developing his own manifesto or even school of architecture (which still appears to me more like a grab-bag of principles of the most socially responsible, contemporary design viable under neoliberalism)?


Notes


[i] The term ‘Vancouverism’ has not been used widely in the city nor has it been precisely identified. In recent years, ‘Vancouverism’ has been used primarily by Trevor Boddy especially for a travelling exhibition of a small group of Vancouver architects. The term was first used in mass media in The New York Times in 2005 (Lisa Chamberlain. 2005. Trying to Build the Grand Central of the West. The New York Times (December 28, 2005)).

[ii] The following passage is but one example of the extent of the increasing blurring of Vancouverism as both an urban movement and a marketing ploy (as the bursting of the high costs of the current real estate bubble is widely acknowledged to be inevitable). “The re-imagining of downtown Vancouver as a residential neighbourhood, of attached homes, highrise and low-rise, and the re-imagining of the attached-home interior occurred more or less simultaneously, in the previous two decades. In that simultaneity is the possibility that the open-plan interior is as much an attribute of “Vancouverism” as are the more widely discussed attributes of the ideology, the creation of space between highrises, for example, with low-rises and public amenities.” (Christina Symons. 2010. Open-plan interiors infuse small spaces with large life. Vancouver Sun (February 19, 2010)). http://www.vancouversun.com/Open+plan+interiors+infuse+small+spaces+with+large+life/2586055/story.html

[iii] One of the more tiresome pieces of a kind of self-congratulation combined with faux self-reflection on the eve of the Olympics was Gary Stephen Ross. 2010. A Tale of Two Cities: The Vancouver you see, and the one you don’t. The Walrus (31 January 2010). http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2010.03-society-a-tale-of-two-cities/

[iv] Douglas Haddow. 2010. Vancouver’s Olympics head for disaster. Two weeks before the games and with police officers on every corner, Vancouver is far from an Olympic wonderland. The Guardian guardian.co.uk (31 January 2010). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jan/31/vancouver-winter-olympics-police

[v] Robin Laurence. 2009. Vancouver artist Stan Douglas revisits the 1971 Gastown Riot. Georgia Strait (December 30, 2009).

[vi] The public symposium, Coming Soon: Negotiating the Expectations of Art in the Public Sphere, will be held at the Audain Gallery, Woodwards Building, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, on Saturday, January 23, 2010.

http://www.artandeducation.net/announcements/view/948 and http://sfuwoodwards.ca/audain.html.

[vii] The public symposium, Learning From Symposium, was held at Vancouver’s Western Front on the 29th and 30th of January, 2010. http://front.bc.ca/mediaarts/events/3314

[viii] Trevor Boddy. 2009/10. Vision deficit. Vancouver Review 24: 8 – 13.

[ix] Don Hann and I ran into Trevor Boddy on the 31st of January, 2010, in the front of Vancouver’s Roundhouse Community Centre. After Hann complimented Boddy on his “Vision deficit” essay, Boddy admitted that while the essay had “ruffled a few feathers,” but that he was already back on good terms again with Director of the Planning Department of the City of Vancouver, Brent Toderian.

[x] Ken Lum from shangri-la to shangri-la, 2010 site-specific installation, Vancouver. The banner accompanying the work states, “The work of Vancouver artist Ken Lum examines the way modernism and mass culture shape our individual experiences of contemporary life. Here Lum has created a site-specific artwork based on the squatters’ shacks that conce inhabited [sic] the north shore of Burrard Inlet, in an area commonly known as the Maplewood Mudflats. Positioned above shimmering surface of the Offsite reflecting pool, Lum’s scale replicas of these now-destroyed dwellings appear as a lingering memory of a particular moment in the lower mainland’s history, one that proposed a rustic concept of the ideal life that contrast dramatically with the visions of ordered perfection embodied in the surrounding architecture.”

[xi] Murray Dobbin. 2009. Why Canada’s Housing Bubble Will Burst (’The largest sub-prime lender in the world is now the Canadian government.’). TheTyee.ca (Vancouver). 22 Oct 2009. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/10/22/BubbleWillBurst/ & Boyd Erman and Tara Perkins. 2010. Big Six banks urge Ottawa to tighten mortgage rules. The Globe and Mail (6 February, 2010).

[xii] “Bright Light brings together the creative energy of fourteen arts organizations active in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Outdoor performances, video projections, urban planning demonstrations, social events and a parade are just some of the manifestations that animate the historical heart of the city. The group includes artist-run centres, a fashion artist, an architecture studio, a commercial gallery, an art publisher and a public gallery.

Bright Light is one of a wide variety of public art projects that have been commissioned to mark the occasion of the Vancouver 2010 Olympics and Paralympic Games.” www.bright-light.ca

[xiii] Robert Enright. 2010. Body Heat: The story of the Woodward’s Redevelopment. Vancouver: Simply Read Books/BLUEIMPRINT. ISBN-13: 978-1897476017.

[xiv] Gregory Henriquez interviewed by Wendy Stueck. 2009. Gregory Henriquez: The architecture solution. The Globe and Mail (Feb. 18, 2009). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article971237.ece

[xv] “Referring to the relaxing of height restrictions in the heritage neighbourhood that allowed for the twin towers, Skip Towne of Vancouver asked, ‘How is architecture ‘ethical’ if a neighbourhood’s stakeholders, apparently solely for financial gain, cavalierly disregard and circumvent heritage protections that have been carefully preserved for generations? ‘” Gregory Henriquez interviewed by Wendy Stueck. 2009. Gregory Henriquez: The architecture solution. The Globe and Mail (Feb. 18, 2009). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/archives/article971237.ece

[xvi] Arthur Erickson. 2006. Arthur Erickson: Critical Works. Nicholas Olsberg and Ricardo Castro (editors). Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre and Vancouver Art Gallery.

[xvii] One of the businesses that was displaced the first Woodward’s ‘redevelopment’ in the years before World War I was the dry goods store owned by my paternal grandparents. Growing up with the oral histories about the Woodward family, their access to capital, and their engagement with employees and the community did shape some of my views of this subsequent redevelopment.

[xviii] Robert Enright. 2010. Body Heat: The story of the Woodward’s Redevelopment.

[xix] Christine McLaren. 2010. Woodward’s Designer Reveals Secrets: Architect Gregory Henriquez gives a tour of his creation’s quirky nooks and crannies, and replies to his critics. TheTyee.ca (25 February 2010)

http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/02/25/GregoryHenriquez/

[xx] Lisa Chamberlain. 2005. Trying to Build the Grand Central of the West. The New York Times (December 28, 2005). http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/realestate/28transbay.html

[xxi] Province of British Columbia, 34th Parliament, 2nd Session, INDEX, Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), March 9, 1987 to March 11, 1988 http://qp.gov.bc.ca/Hansard/hansindx/34th2nd/34_02_index_C.htm See entries for Concord Pacific Developments Ltd.

[xxii] And the one local studio of innovative designers that has been able to avoid economic marginalization has been Henriquez & Partners Vancouverism where Gregory Henriquez’s had a long history of designing the more interesting of Vancouver’s forest of bland towers going back to the 1970s and 1980s.

[xxiii] Michael Sasges. 2010. Our ‘ideology’ of downtown residency speaks to the world’s aspirations - Woodward’s exhibit celebrates 50-year pursuit of density and amenity. Vancouver Sun (February 20, 2010). http://www.vancouversun.com/ideology+downtown+residency+speaks+world+aspirations/2591055/story.html

[xxiv] Lisa Rochon. 2010. It took a village, but they got it right. Globe and Mail (February 13, 2010).

[xxv] Trevor Boddy. 2007. DWELLING: CONDOMINIUMS: DESIGN - A condo on the rocks. Globe and Mail (June 15, 2007). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/a-condo-on-the-rocks/article763585/

[xxvi] Pechet and Robb Studio [Bill Pechet and Stephanie Robb with essays by Christopher Macdonald and Greg Bellerby]. 2006. Sweaterlodge [Catalog for the exhibition representing Canada at the 10th Venice Biennale of Architecture from 10 September until 19 November, 2006]. Vancouver: Blueimprint.

[xxvii] Don Hann and I ran into Trevor Boddy on the 31st of January, 2010, in the front of Vancouver’s Roundhouse Community Centre, and Boddy stated that Ian Gillespie still owed him over $13,000. for his commitment to funding part of the exhibit.

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.