truly. Love from Toronto Uytae🙌🏾

He honestly is!

I'll second that. This is probably his most thoughtful piece yet.

The idea of preserving old mansions on huge, wasteful lots is so bizarre. As Uytae said, these laws preserve the rich, exclusionary characteristics of the neighbourhood, which is a complete waste in a city like Vancouver imo

The mansions should be opened up to communal uses like libraries, universities, etc

@@tanishqsagar3440 Canada has no shortage of space, saying otherwise shows a ulterior agenda. One that is militant and unwanted immigrant in nature (no doubt).

I can see the heritage buildings being used for group homes for disabled people.

@@TM-100 That sounds amazing! I was thinking a museum, especially museums on the history of the house, the area, the architectural style, etc.

How do they do that with houses with basements though?

@@FuzzyKittenBoots I assume you'd rip everything out from the old basement and excavate/fill as needed. In the case of the most recent example of this being done near me, the old house was moved onto a totally new foundation.

@@aerob1033 So… part of the houses are just being erased? I get the need to move them but it’s kind of sad

@@FuzzyKittenBoots I'm sure you could preserve the materials and rebuild it in its new location if it was architecturally/historically significant stuff. Pretty rare for basements to be more than a plain, functional space though, right?

@@aerob1033 I don't live in Canada so I'm sure it could be true there? I live in Europe though and I would absolutely consider the basement as an important part of history precisely because of it's functions. Not only will you find food storage that just doesn't exist in modern houses but in many older houses this is where the original kitchen would have been as well as the sleeping space for servants.

He tries too hard and it's obvious he's a failed actor. He's made what could be a watchable video needlessly annoying, so therefore unwatchable. What he needs is direction. His style is not suited for the material. It's typical CBC - so unwatchable - as apparently we're all stupid.

Agree 100%! I'd love to see him do videos about Toronto. Or work with a local Torontonian to develop similar content!

Probably better choices.

I second this

A simple solution is a ward system- let go of party politics, and low civic election turnouts. the city of Vancouver is all about protecting real-estate value and protecting interest of nimbyism.

historians would go on to describe this as "an approach".

saw a vid in London UK where there heritage listed properties they will build out MULTI STORY basements and NOT touch the outside of the property expensive exclusive houses being made far MORE expensive and exclusive OR being "upgraded" for MODERN family uses - take your pick

the UK around London there are a LOT of "mansions" converted into apartment blocks so 100% heritage save AND housing units increased AND cool heritage housing units that rent for a premium

EX ones that are in such PRIME locations imagine a FEW of those houses being replaced with row homes and mid rise towers and keeping some of the park like setting yet so close to such a bustling neighbourhood

@@jasonriddell well, it's usually a hit against the overall heritage if you stick a modern development in an otherwise historically-correct, amd consistent environment. If it's done very judiciously, and to replace the less-valuable property, IMO that's the ticket. Vancouver should be redeveloping its glut of the "Vancouver specials" before demolishing any of the older structures, IMO.

@@freezerlunik Very few of the neighbourhoods where the Vancouver special is prolific are as amenity and transit rich as Shaughnessy. While zoning absolutely needs to change across the entirety of the City, the sheer scale of how low-density Shaughnessy is, solely due to exclusionary policy, is an affront to the hundreds of thousands of people experiencing housing insecurity in Metro Vancouver.

@@justindcook9 why not build amenities while building density while preserving heritage? By your logic every heritage rich neighborhood will just happen to be in a prime location rich with amenities. End state with heritage+density+new amenities seems like a better overall value than density on top of incumbent amenities and heritage gone.

@@freezerlunik It's hardly "heritage" if any of the heritage value is stuck behind gates and tall hedges. I am perfectly fine with seeing heritage aspects of important sites preserved while density is allowed to also flourish. The preservation of heritage ought to be focused on the educational aspects of communicating the cultural and historical significance of a site on to future generations. A neighbourhood like Shaughnessy being designated as heritage because "it was created for rich people and they spent a lot of money on their homes" is a terrible rationale for a heritage designation. I am all game for converting the existing buildings into multi-family buildings and allowing for additions and other methods of densification. Where particularly heritage rich amenities exist in an individual property, those aspects can be conserved while still allowing for added density and change over time.

Melbourne Australia they "save" the facade and build a NEW building out of the OLD one leaving the front of the original structure

I think I was in that area once in my life delivering a hot tub and did NOT know what it was called OR its history AND not sure that is where I was clearly the "exclusive" part still works to this day as we both did NOT know about that area

Yup, I know which one it is. I visit that coffee shop a lot. The food isn't so great but the heritage home vibe draws me back everytime, especially during Christmas.

Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion sounds more fitting

You can see that in the house that started it all.

Similar experience here.

He kind of does. www.youtube.com/@AboutHere/

@@yeastandgrain Thank you ... That channel only has a few of his vids 😔

the "crystal mall" in Burnaby is a MODERN recreation of those stores in a more "approachable" format

I have to agree, although I’m not familiar with the history and age of the Joyce area strip, my guess would be that those Filipino businesses were an opportunity for recent arrivals to establish themselves, creating an organic neighbourhood retail strip that served those living there. This is a story repeated over and over in Vancouver since its incorporation in 1886; Chinatown, The Greek Village (Kits), Little Italy, (Hastings), Little India (South Main), Little Vietnam (Kingsway) Little Japan (Powell) Hogan’s Alley, and several others. Many of these have survived and thrived because of their relative size and built environment. Chinatown is protected not just because of its history and importance, but also because of the unique design and development of many of the buildings. We can see and experience what we are wanting to preserve. That’s certainly not the case with the buildings by Joyce Station. These are generic storefronts that are unique because of the activity and businesses they house. What would we protect here? No case to be made for the buildings, and mandating what kind of businesses can operate there would be really shaky ground and ultimately unsuccessful because communities are organic and always changing, and having covenants such as use placed on these buildings.....well I think you see where I’m going here. There’s not enough there, there. And if the community is resilient and wants these businesses to continue to operate, then they will be supported when they change locations. The case to be made for preserving Shaughnessy, particularly First Shaughnessy is that once it’s gone, it’s gone. Class and privilege aside, Shaughnessy is a pretty big chapter in Vancouver’s short history, the reasons why it was built, how, and who was behind the development could fill a book. The fact that although from the time it was built until 1929: it wasn’t even in the City of Vancouver, but a separate municipality, leading to many of it historic anomalies. The neighbourhood has already been saved a couple of times, in the 30s and later in the 60s and 70s, nobody could afford these big houses, and many were rooming houses, or left to fall apart. I completely disagree with discouraging visitors and such, not just because it’s exclusionary, but because the collective “we” through our elected government is why they still exist. I spend a lot of time walking through Shaughnessy and many other Vancouver neighbourhoods, photographing and documenting those that, for many historic reasons, survived to today with much of their original history and development intact. There are so many spots all over Vancouver, wealthy areas, once wealthy areas, middle class, lower class, working class, all different kinds of housing with histories and stories just as important, perhaps even more so than Shaughnessy, where one can see this happening. I think in the past, there was little second thought when buying a property with an older home or building on it, knocking it down was the first and only thought. I’m a little hopeful today that maybe new owners, whether through local legislation, or simply more knowledge and awareness, will have a second thought as to how and why the building might be retained or modified for use today.

There is a lot of important architectural history to be preserved in chinatown.

@@stephaniewatts1956 Like what, the gate? If you watched this guy's segment, he concludes that the architecture argument makes these neighbourhoods ghost towns.

a "increased density" project would be DEAD DUE to the protection covenant the area "enjoys" I agree in this example "society looses" with the demo as NO NEW housing units are built but is a GOOD example of "protection" laws saving a property that has LITTLE SOCIAL value and from the looks of it is not in 'good" shape and likely NEEDS full renovation to bring it to a standard to live in for the people that can afford to purchase it IE 1%