@F.H. Leghorn

Being the Southern gentleman that you are, can I saflee assume, suh, that your favourite music is Countree and Western? As an amatoor composer in that genree mahself, I have composed a few on The Waldorf.
Such as: “The Old Waldorf Don’t Look The Same, as I walked in from the rain and there to meet me was you and Glissy……….”
Or, ” As I Walked Down the Street of East Hastings, Walked down East Hastings one day, an Old beer parlour I happened to spy….”
Or, ” Stand By Your Planner…Sometimes It’s Hard to Be a Planner, Giving all your love to just one plan…

Ah, suggest, suh, you akwire more culture. Why just last Christmas a took little Chicken Hawk to see Hamlet’s Messiah.

@Glissy. Cheers to you. But I wasn’t doing Carry Grant in Notorius (sic) – I vas dooink Peter Lore.

You guys know the ‘pop’ in pop music stands for popular right?

No fans, not pop.

I don’t think it’s particular ‘esoteric’ but I do know that it’s a craft, and these claims of half hour pop songs are the outliers of the talented and inspired out in the real world, and simplistic over generalizations here in Fabulastan. The number of songs out there is a strange measure. How many books are there in the world. Think that it’s easy to write a book too?

I have no idea what you are jabbering about now. You got busted trying to make a dumb-ass over-generalization. Walk away.

@ Waltyss/Mike/Geoff 88.

Sandy has clarified her position re: subsidies in 101. It appears we agree, the subsidies are not justifiable for the Waldorf based on the information available at this point in the discussion.

My concern with respect to your comments here and in general are that they are aggressive in style and tone and they do have the effect of “intimidating” and “bullying”. With respect to style and tone, the English language is a rich toll that enables the writer to express him/herself articulately without resorting to the language you employed in 88. Thank you for continuing to validate my ‘belief’ of your motivation.

Since our discussion is of little relevance to the discussion at hand I will not comment further, however, because I know it’s important to you, you cam have the last word.

@ Sandy Garossino #101

“Solterra’s investment is predicated on an expectation that re-zoning of the property is a mere formality.”

Assumptions continue to be made about Solterra’s intention for the property without any basis in fact. Solterra has not made a rezoning application and have made no public statements about its intention. As stated elsewhere, the owner’s business interests extend beyond being a developer of condominiums exclusively and may include the Moda Hotel downtown.

Perhaps Solterra will propose a redevelopment scheme that introduces some form of densification of the site while retaining the best elements of the existing hotel. It has been reported that the Waldorf Creative Team was exploring this notion with third party developers (without the knowledge of the property owner), but they haven’t been vilified for being opportunistic and potentially seeking to redevelop the property while Solterra has. This strikes me as a particularly egregious double standard.

@ Roger Kemble #99:
You get no points for splitting hairs on heritage preservation. Yes, you are correct: The big Pantages Theatre was indeed where the A&N parking lot was located. But the smaller Pantages, built by Alexander Pantages in 1907, was equally important in its own way. For a useful (though now sadly outdated) historical backgrounder, see: http://www.vancouverhistory.ca/archives_pantages.htm.

I can barely remember the facade of the larger Pantages from my youth. I never saw a movie there. But the theatre you would dismiss as the “pretender” Pantages was eminently worth preserving. Prior to its final incarnation as the Chinese-operated Sun Sing, in the mid-70s, when hastings was still a viable street for businesses, it was operated for several years by a group of longhairs as the City Nights and in that incarnation it was Vancouver’s premier second-run house (they also presented occasional live-music gigs and similar events– but mostly movies). I saw movies there many times; it was, for a while, one of *the* places to go in town, in the sense of when talking to friends, a frequent phrase to be heard would be something like “Hey, the City Nights is showing “Casablanca” at midnight on Friday– ya wanna go??” Or: “Whaddya wanna do this weekend?” “I dunno– what’s on at the City Nights?”. It was a lovely little jewel box of a theatre, with loges and brass-railed boxes and an atmosphere of elegant decay.

Side note: In the early 50s the Pantages, then the Avon, played a leading role in one of Vancouver’s most famous censorship battles. You can find the story here, recounted by the son of one of the main participants: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=c5515c19-e05b-452e-87bc-5f7982976b22

It’s not at all helpful to, as I say, split hairs in preservation struggles. I lament the closing of the Granville 7 because, as a long time Film Festival devotee, I now fear for the festival’s future. My sense of loss re the G7 is not mitigated one whit by the fact that one block up Granville, where the hideous Eaton’s/Sears/soon-to-be-Nordstrom store now evilly squats, once stood the old Vancouver Opera House, a theatre grander than any of the others we’ve been discussing. The Opera House ended its days as the Lyric, where, up until its criminally-stupid destruction in 1969, you could go to a Saturday matinee double bill of second-run films for $1.50 and view them in the baroque splendour of a gorgeous, grand old theatre that rivalled the Orpheum. (see: http://illustratedvancouver.ca/post/22976241259/lost-backdrops-of-vancouver) As far as I’m concerned, the destruction of any of these theatres represented, and still represents, a catastrophic loss to Vancouver’s never-large and now-rapidly-dwindling cultural-DNA pool. Who the hell cares which Pantages was bigger or better than the other? They’re both gone now, and that’s a goddamned tragedy, not least because it was wholly avoidable.

@CK #110:

“Pretty much.”

I hope that you are as amused by your clever redefinition as I am. 🙂

“But, you know what? If you guys want to hold up your hands as proof that any ‘idiot’ can write a pop song, who am I to question your self-assessment?”

At long last, common ground. As I said, if I can do it, anyone can do it.

“Cheers and Rock On”

You too. 🙂

(And with that, we’ll bring this little thread hijack to an end.)

@Tiktaalik #109 and IanS #113

From the Moda Hotel website:

“Moda Hotel Vancouver’s owner, a self-made Italian entrepreneur and Vancouver real-estate developer envisioned a better future for the property—something Italian-inspired with elements of fresh design and style, but still connected to its historical roots; something unique to Vancouver – something people from all the world could enjoy. And so, the restoration process began.”

I believe this reference is to Gerry Nichele, owner of Solterra. Solterra developed the two towers across Smithe to the north “Dolce” and “Vita”, as well as the parking garage directly across from the Orpheum. Evidently not just a “condo developer”. He has other construction related businesses as well.

The short term lease commitment offered to WCT was by its landlord, the owner of the Waldorf, reflecting what the vast majority of commercial landlords would do if faced with a breached lease and $370K in rental arrears that they ultimately forgave. Apparently the idea of continuing to give control of a valuable real estate asset to a tenant that had not demonstrated the ability to create a sustainable business lost its appeal – imagine that.

The entertainment business, including food and beverage, is one of the riskiest business ventures out there. Clubs and restaurants fail all the time, leaving breached leases, unpaid bills and bankrupt investors behind them. However, many of these failed locations are in operation today – different owner/new investors, new name, change the paint, etc. – because someone else came along and made something work there that their predecessors couldn’t.

Creativity is not the exclusive domain of WCT. They obviously weren’t able to create a sustainable business model out of their concept, but what’s to say that with the right operator in place Solterra couldn’t?

We digress?

Thread killer – thanks for the very informative links. I now know something about Marcus Priteca, who designed all of the original Pantages theatres over 2 decades. A wonderful digression.

@Threadkiller // Jan 19, 2013 at 3:18 pm
and @ Roger Kemble #99:

I was searching the VPL collection of city directories online for another topic, (How many Japanese noted in the area around Peter Wall’s dreadful 900 East Hastings monstrosity in 1940, before the shameful 1942 exclusion, explusion), and turned to Hastings Street.

http://www.vpl.ca/bccd/index.php/browse/title/1940/British_Columbia_and_Yukon_Directory

The Royal Theatre listed in 1940 is the ex-Avon, City Nights, Sung Song etc. at 144 Hastings East in those days, with the Royal Theatre Barbershop at 146, and next to Nordic News at 142

The Beacon Theatre (later the Majestic) was a 20 West Hastings, Rex Theatre across the street at 25 West, with the Rex Cafe at 16 and Army and Navy listed as 25-27 West Hastings.

And for the bicycle frothers, at 38 West Hastings, Haskin and Elliott bicycles.

The 20 West (Pantages) Beacon was mentioned in Saturday’s Vancouver Sun, by an anonymous by-lined (Probably John Mackie) article on a 1943 appearance by Sally Rand there.

See searcharchives.vancouver.ca/miss-sally-rand-bathing-in-washtub;rad for a photo from the Vancouuver Herald (anyone remember the last days of that and Vancouver Newspaper Row along Pender?)
[ ( frozen acetate ) another reason not to move archives but give it a few more million ]

canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=fdfcb8de-ab77-4828-80ec-842cd5c91bdf&k=58710

This day in history: January 19, 1939
Sally Rand was only 5-foot-1, but she made every inch count.
By Vancouver Sun January 19, 2013

Sally Rand was only 5-foot-1, but she made every inch count.
Rand was one of the great burlesque dancers of the 20th century, wowing audiences with her infamous “fan dance” and “bubble dance” from the 1930s to the 1970s.
She brought them both to town 74 years ago, when she arrived in Vancouver for a weeklong booking at the Beacon Theatre on Hastings Street.
The Sun dubbed her the “stormy petrol of the stage, acclaimed by thousands for her creative dancing, condemned by other thousands for alleged immodesty.”
An anonymous reporter visited Rand in her dressing room at the Beacon, where they found her stylishly clad in a blue hat and suit, “with a checkered tweed coat to set off her golden hair.” The reporter seemed rather taken with the dancer, noting that she “talks about current events as intelligently and as interestingly as any student of modern affairs.”
“I like your Baron Tweedsmuir,” Rand said. “I met him in Toronto, and he seems to be a man not only highly intellectual, but one who sticks to his principles.” The reporter added Rand wore her hair “long with a few curls on top,” that her fingernails were “innocent of colour,” and that “she wears no jewelry.”
Born Helen Gould Beck in Elkton, Mo., she left home to dance in the carnival in her teens. By the mid-1920s she was in Hollywood, where the legendary director Cecil B. DeMille gave her a stage name inspired by the Rand McNally atlas.
She appeared in several silent movies, but found her forte in Chicago in 1932, when she purchased a pair of large ostrich feather “fans” and introduced it into her stage act.
She was wearing a sheer body stocking behind the fans, but looked nude from a distance, and her male admirers were smitten.
The ostrich feathers didn’t work so well when it was windy outdoors, so she came up with her other shtick, a giant see-though bubble she danced behind and tossed in the air. You can find clips of her performing both dances on YouTube.”
—-
The 144 Hastings East (Pantages) Avon etc. tried Burlesque as did the Star (crushed under the Vancouver Police Station on Main St.)

@ Cheezwiz #118: Thanks for your comments (and thanx to Frank Ducote as well). I could make a number of additions to your short though well-chosen list, but in the interest of brevity, fro the moment I will restrict it to just one. As a film buff for more than 40 years, I admit to a soft spot for movie theatres. Hence I would add the Strand Theatre, which once stood where the Scotiabank tower is now located. The Strand’s exterior wasn’t especially distinctive, and its lobby was surprisingly small for its size, but at nearly 2,000 seats it was one of the largest of the downtown theatres and its prominent location made it one of the most important. Probably every long-time Vancouverite of a certain age remembers the Strand fondly, as it was the theatre that always hosted the newest Disney feature, both live-action and animated. This was big stuff to kids back in the day. Like a lot of kids, for a few years my mother would take me and a small group of select little friends to the Strand as a special treat on my birthday if a Disney film was playing. No wonder I feel nostalgic about the venue. And almost everyone who was taking English Literature in high school in Greater Vancouver in 1968 probably remembers being taken on a field trip to the Strand to see Franco Zefferelli’s teenage eye-candy version of “Romeo and Juliet”.

Here is a link to an absolutely stunning photo, taken in 1924, that, amazingly, shows three of the buildings mentioned in our discussion (the Strand, the Birks building, and the second Hotel Vancouver): http://www.flickr.com/photos/45379817@N08/5249749468/. Note that the Vancouver Block, somewhat miraculously still with us and one of the supreme architectural gems of this city, is also visible. Note also that the Birks building’s beautiful terracotta facade only faced Georgia and Granville Streets– its back side was rather mundane by comparison.

Side note: I suppose I must have been among the last people to enter the Birks Building. From 1974 to 1980 I worked on and off in the local construction industry (Labourers’ union, local 602). The work was often brutal but the money was good. One of the early jobs I worked on, for a couple of months in the Fall of 1974, was the massive project that saw the erection of the Scotia tower and what is now the London Drugs location (the latter, of course, is on the site of the Birks building). One day the foreman dispatched a group of us to remove some equipment from the basement of the Birks building, which was still standing although it had been stripped of its contents and was being prepped for demolition. We had to access the basement through a stairway leading down from the main floor. The basement itself was the site of a large excavation; the floor had been removed and was now dirt (this is done to give the building something to collapse into upon implosion, a fairly standard procedure). The combination of the dirt floor, now at a level well below the support walls, the spooky lighting, and the various workmen at their jobs gave one the impression of being present at an archaeological dig; perhaps the excavation of an ancient tomb. Like a lot of Vancouverites at the time, I was deeply saddened by the building’s imminent destruction and I found just being in that vast, tragic room to be emotionally challenging (God forbid one should shed tears in front of a gang of brawny construction workers). Just a few weeks later, the tomb-like nature of that space reached an apotheosis of sorts, when it was filled with the rubble of one of the most beautiful buildings this city has ever known. (I had been laid off by then– I was never very good at construction work– so I didn’t have to watch.) The preservationist movement in Vancouver, never strong (and still not), was in its infancy in those days, and the outcry to save the Birks building fell on stone-deaf ears (as it likely would today as well). But at least the Birks demolition acted as a catalyst to give it momentum. The struggle continues, despite having endured many defeats over the years.

While we’re on the subject of theatres, here is a group of photos that may interest you, assembled by a local blogger. There were so many wonderful theatres in this city at one time, and so few of them are left. Here are a few that used to grace our streets (a couple still do): http://www.miss604.com/2012/03/archives-photos-of-the-day-theatres.html

…and Frances thought we were sick of this subject. Ha!

First, @waltyss +1!

@Bill McCreery I think you need to be a little more circumpect about the exact issue you are supporting here. And with whom you toss in your lot. BTW, I think your attack on @waltyss on this was unwarranted.

@Bill Lee #122 Re: Kerry Gold column

Ah, the proverbial ‘chicken/egg question: which comes first. The ‘scene’ or the condo developers?

While it may seem like development happens only in ‘happenin” places, let’s face it: developers will grab any land they can get their hands on that is in proximity to downtown and/or public transit. East Hastings and Chinatown meet both those criteria.

Now, as for saving buildings like the Waldorf for ANY proscribed endeavour, that remains up to community groups and politician to hammer out. As I, Toderian and jut about everyone else on this thread understand is that the City has not committed to ANY real preervation policy for cultural places. Just paid lip service to reports and suggetions about policy—perhaps there is already too much payout on land that has already been banked—and not used for these purposes?

As to the Waldorf building itself being an “incubator” or even ‘responsible’ for the flourishing of neo-artistic or renaiissance endeavours I say: bushwah. IT WAS A DILAPIDATED HOTEL SERVING BEER JUST 2 YEAR AGO! NOW, IT’S AN UPGRADED HOTEL, SERVING BEER!

Does this mean that there was no art/artists in Vancouver before the Waldorf undertook its metamorphasis? Hardly. In fact, here’s an artist who persuaively argues that it’s not a building that inspires art:

Art’s community hardly needs the Waldorf to thrive

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/entertainment/community+hardly+needs+Waldorf+thrive/7845573/story.html#ixzz2Ijgiyxvd

I do hope that we look at real preservation of ‘older building in this city. The current lack of logical planning is stripping the personality from many of our neighbourhoods.

Downtown South was stripped of its nightclubs to avoid noise complaints from residents. i.e. Graceland, Starfish Room, Luv-a-Fair, Richards on Richards and the latest being Mars (or whatever its latest name was). Now they are all on Granville, which creates it own set of problems, but I suppose that’s better than noise complaints from throughout Downtown South. People complain about the slightest noise these days – even restaurant patios.

Thought of The Day

“Believing that Waldoofus Productions cared about the Art Community, is like believing some Hootsuite employees care about their former DTES neighborhood.”

Frankenwaldorf! #124 #125
Liked your comments. A lot!
Kate MacDonald’s too. Good idea for posting it.
Thanks.

Going back to the current ‘hipsterism’ emanating from the likes of Waldorfs.
Last Friday was last day for Hootsuite aka the newest “Rent To Own” Vancouver City Hall, Giftee, in their old DTES location.
You may think that corporate welfare would put some humility and respect for this city in the brains of this select group.
Well you be the judge, the following is the message posted last Friday, as a farewell message to their host neighborhood… for how many years?

https://twitter.com/jonesj/status/292816387578163200/photo/1

Needless to say that the tweet was deleted pronto, after a tide of tweeting displeasure, and subsequently the digital fingerprint was sanitized less, ahem… one.
Long live the screen shots!

Why am I posting this? Because neither the poster or Hootsuite had the decency to offer an apology for the condescending, arrogant comment, re. their former host neighborhood. They are people you know!

Oh well, for shame, and good luck Mt. Pleasant!
At least now, they know who’s coming for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

I’m curious what they’ll have to say when they move to, say… The Next Best Thing. Till then though…

We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

One club closes, another one opens.

No Starfish Room, (crap sight lines to the stage IIRC) but we have the Biltmore.

No Luvafair, but there’s the Electric Owl

No Dick’s, but there’s Bar None.

No Town Pump, but there’s…. at least a half dozen other places downtown where you can catch live, local bands.

Live music fans complaining there’s a lack of entertainment options. Deja vu from 1950/60/70/80/90 or last week?

Honestly people, this city has real issues to deal with and the reality of the entertainment business is that there’s always an oversupply of bands, actors, authors, venues, etc. A contraction in entertainment options is arguably a great way to help ensure the viability of the operations that remain. Further, there are lots of places you can rent and put on a show if you so desire.

I think people such as the intelligentsia that frequent this blog are under the misapprehension that their tastes represent the mainstream.

There’s absolutely no evidence to suggest that the largest cohort of people aren’t quite happy with predictable and unchallenging fare such as they can find at the Megaplex or McDonalds. Let them eat Big Macs and listen to Carly Rae I say, and who is anyone to judge another’s taste? I like music that sounds like robots fighting over the last slice of dilithium crystal pizza, but I don’t expect the City or the market to accommodate my tastes or the artists who satiate it. Instead I keep my eyes open for shows I know that I’ll like, and I do my best to attend and spend. The reality is that there’s a lot of talk about how people are just dying to get out and see a show, but when push comes to shove, they don’t vote with their feet (is that a three-mix metaphor?)

Bill Lee #132 thanks for the links! Didn’t realize the original Capitol also had a backdoor on to Seymour!

And lo and behold, here’s a faded photo of the interior:
http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/interior-view-of-capitol-theatre;rad

Beautiful! Protestors didn’t manage to save the original Capitol, but public outcry (just barely) saved the Orpheum, and look how much we treasure it today.

@Cheezwiz:
The pre-multiplexed Capitol reached some kind of peak in its career when it was transformed into a Cinerama theatre for the premiere run of Kubrick’s “2001” in 1968. Every “head” (doper, to you, as in “acidhead”– excuse the vintage idiom) in town attended as many screenings as he or she could afford. The view of that huge screen from the seats down toward center front was truly breathtaking, especially during the Stargate sequence… people who are too young to have experienced large single-screen theatres and question why the few remaining ones should be preserved simply have no idea what they’re talking about. They missed the golden age of film exhibition.

“You have to admit”

This is the point. ‘You’ don’t have to admit anything. It’s a matter of taste and municipal gov’t shouldn’t be trying to preserve one taste over another.

@Glissy #129:

I saw that highly offensive andutterly rude Tweet. And if that wasn’t offensive enough, she, didn’t have the balls to make an attempt of any sort at an apology.

As I remarked, evidentially Hootsuite isn’t big on hiring the best, or the BRIGHTEST.

I am happy you saved the screen shot. The woman who posted the Tweet deserves alesson in humility. (And humanity, but I think she is a lost cause)

@Threadkiller // Jan 23, 2013 at 12:47 am #135

The Strand, now crushed under the Scotia Bank tower on Georgia Street had Cinerama earlier.
But that was a single screen and therefore could show fewer movies.
The cineplex complex idea is that as a movie had fewer viewers they could moved it to another one of the closet-sized cinemas.
Remember the dreadful Royal Centre cineplex where you could hear all the other movies throug the walls.
I recommend to you “Four aspects of the film” by James L. Limbacher New York : Arno Press, 1978, Brussel and Brussel c1969. [ Sound, Colour, 3-d, screen ratios such as Cinerama ]
Not at VPL

@ Frankenwaldorf 125

“I think you need to be a little more circumpect about the exact issue you are supporting here. And with whom you toss in your lot. BTW, I think your attack on @waltyss on this was unwarranted.”

Fair comment. I withdraw my concerns about what at times seems to be waltyss’ defensiveness about Vision Van. Rather, perhaps I should ask that he/she (it would be helpful to know who as well) deal with me as a citizen concerned with how our City is evolving, and not as a member of the NPA. Please also do not consider everything I say to be playing politics.

My comments and criticisms are from the perspective of the above “concerned citizen”. On the other hand politics for me is a means by to make meaningful change. I do not believe it is acceptable to just sit back and say: “ain’t it awful” in a democratic society. You have a responsibility to get involved in, God forbid, politics and do your best to do it better. Politics for me is one of the means, not the end.

to better understand my concerns with respect to the Waldorf please refer to the Straight interview:

http://www.straight.com/news/342851/waldorf-hotel-operator-seeks-meeting-purchaser-city-evaluates-heritage-value

My principle concern here is that Vision Vancouver’s reckless use of spot rezoning’s here and anywhere and everywhere else is indeed creating a ‘train wreck’ (sorry waltyss) of major proportions with respect to ignoring Council bylaws, neighbourhood plans, confusing, inappropriate, out of scale built forms, a chaotic and consequently over priced real estate market, unnecessary future congestion problems, and more that will ultimately create the opposite of the energy conserving, walkable, affordable neighbourhoods that Vision Vancouver say they want to achieve.

As information has come forth it appears the Waldorf operators did not have a viable operation, and based on that its difficult to support their attempt to hang on. However, I do know some young people who love the stimulating venue and musicians. Both the musicians and the audience need to be encouraged and have viable venues, but not subsidized.

I also happen to like the building (especially inside, the exterior could be improved), and believe its post War late art deco style is perhaps worthy of saving, but not by giving away copious quantities of density ( a form of subsidy). There are few good examples from this period, and the best should be retained.

I’m glad you questioned the issues I am supporting Frank. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify briefly what I am and not supporting.

WEG, teririch, Gliss…
Any response from Hootsuite? Yay, nay, sorry?
That was very low brain matter from a “progressive” tech. Comp. Sheesh…

ha.
I thought this thread is dead… then I read that insufferable “tweet” posted by Glissy @129 with complimentary info. from teririch @146.
Are you kidding me?
No reaction? Not even from Frances Bula… ? If that message was left by a “male” and also not a Vision Vancouver/ Robertson “friendly” partner… there would have been a ruckus!
Go figure. Then again, coming from a woman, it’s really depressing. Phew!