Author: Stan S.

We’re pleased to announce we’ve completed a major project to reprocess the entirety of the Building Department and Permits and Licensing Department’s architectural drawings collection in our holdings. Birks Building, lobby and staircase elevations, 1912. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0002: LEG2285.00242 The drawings depict the entire range of structures built in the city in the 70 or so years from the institution of the building permit application process to the early 1970s. The series also includes original drawings created by Building Department staff in the fifteen years or so up to 1936, during which time the Department was responsible for design and renovation of buildings for City use. “Old City Hall” (425 Main Street) floor plans for alterations to make the council chamber. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-2038: LEG2285.33315 Pretty much every kind of structure that was built in the City, other than single family homes, is represented in the collection. There are retail buildings of every kind, including a wide variety of buildings related to cars, including dealerships, repair shops and gas stations: Perspective rendering of the Johnston Motors service station, 9-15 Kingsway Avenue, 1944-1945. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-1089: LEG2285.23455 There are industrial buildings and complexes, the full spectrum of manufacturing buildings, and transportation infrastructure: Elevations and sections of the New England Fish Company wharf, North foot of Gore Street, 1919. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0258: LEG2285.18979 There are hotels, apartment buildings, and conversion of single-family homes to rooming houses: Elevations of the Huntingdon Apartments, 1155 Gilford Street, 1941. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0606: LEG2285.09820 Du Mont Auto Motel, 3090 Kingsway, 1946? . Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-1132: LEG2285.25644 There are private and public hospitals, including almost the entire history of Vancouver General Hospital buildings up to the early 1970s: McGill Block, 800-block West 10th Avenue, 1914. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-1962: LEG2285.01836 Dozens of files depict structures in city parks, including 43 files for structures in Stanley Park and the Zoo alone: Elevations and sections of Malkin Bowl, Stanley Park, 1934? . Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0163: LEG2285.06444 Elevations of the bear grottos, Stanley Park Zoo, 1960? . Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-1721: LEG2285.20325 There are entertainment venues, such as sports and recreation facilities, theatres and movie houses: English Bay Pier, 1925. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0778: LEG2285.15909 There are schools across the City built for all three School Boards: Hastings Elementary School, 1912? . Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0087: LEG2285.18365 There are public buildings of many types, including a number built at and for the Pacific National Exhibition, and featuring a number of rides and other Playland attractions: Space Tower, elevations and sections, 1968. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-1932: LEG2285.22599 There are churches, assembly halls, legions and social clubs: Our Lady of Perpetual Help, 1925. Reference Code: COV-S393-1-AP-0514: LEG2285.02185 These records were transferred to the Archives in the 1970s, as a result of the Permits and Licensing Department microfilming the records and disposing of the originals. Most of the drawings came into the custody of the Building Department and its successor, the Permits and Licensing Department, as supporting documentation for building permit applications. After issuing the permits, the department seems to have separated the drawings from the remainder of the file, issued them a new file number and in many cases, accumulated drawings from multiple permit applications to form a new filing system by property. Files for properties owned or used by the City often include drawings created by the Building Department itself, added to drawings by outside firms. For industrial and other sites with multiple buildings, drawings of the various buildings were often aggregated into one file. In most cases after 1912, the permit number the drawings were originally associated with was written on the back of the outer drawing of the roll, likely to allow tracking from the drawings back to the original permit file. The reason for the separation of the drawings from their original files is unknown, though it is likely that the drawings were set aside for future reference if later permit applications were made for the building. From what we can tell, this collection did not as a rule include drawings of single-family homes, as it seems that that the Building Department either didn’t retain them after the building permit was issued or systematically purged them at some point before microfilming. As Vancouver did, the municipalities of Point Grey and South Vancouver had their own Building By-laws and building permitting and inspection administration. With the amalgamation of the three municipalities in 1929, building permit application records from the southern municipalities were integrated into the files of the Vancouver Building Department. These files were often then labelled as Vancouver Building Department records, and Building Department file numbers added to them. Most of these drawings do not have South Vancouver or Point Grey permit numbers on the back of the drawings, as it appears these municipalities did not repurpose submitted drawings in the way Vancouver did (and still does). Reprocessing the files has allowed us to correct and in the majority of cases, make significant additions to the file level metadata and conduct a comprehensive review of access restrictions. The descriptions have been transcribed from the Reading Room card catalogue, corrected and expanded, and uploaded to the AtoM database where they are now fully-searchable by researchers. One significant addition to the metadata is links to all identified records creators. Over 900 architects, engineers, contractors, signage companies, federal and provincial government departments, departments in all three municipalities, decorators, equipment suppliers, and companies in various industries are linked

With its promise of a cleaner, more sustainable future, renewable energy is quickly changing how we power our planet. The drive for renewable energy sources has intensified as worries about environmental damage and climate change mount. Solar power has become a major player among the many renewable energy sources because of its adaptability and general availability. Still, renewable energy encompasses a wide range of creative ideas intended to use wind, water, and geothermal heat in addition to solar technology. Tomorrow’s energy will be renewable. Innovations in this area are causing waves as we progress toward a more sustainable society, particularly in solar technology and other sources. Innovations in Solar Power The leading renewable energy technology is solar power. Because the cost and efficiency of solar panels have dropped recently, more households and businesses may now use greener energy. Panels that can collect sunlight even on overcast days are one significant development. This implies that solar energy is usable in more locations worldwide than just those with plenty of sunny days. There are other uses for solar technology besides energy. Better methods of heating our houses and water, thanks to solar heating innovations, are lowering our need for fossil fuels. A drive is also on to incorporate solar electricity into windows and building materials, potentially turning buildings into energy-producing machines. Other Renewable Advancements Beyond Solar The renewable landscape includes solar energy in large measure, but other technologies are also developing quickly. Wind Energy: Wind turbines are becoming bigger and more effective all the time. It follows that they can produce more electricity with the same quantity of wind. Certain modern designs create modern opportunities for growth, allowing turbines to operate in locations with little wind. Hydroelectric Power: In isolated or rural locations in particular, small-scale hydroelectric facilities are becoming more and more common. These facilities produce electricity by using rivers and streams instead of huge dams, making them less environmentally damaging. Geothermal Energy: This technique uses the heat of the earth to heat buildings and produce electricity. Since deeper heat sources are now easier to access thanks to recent developments, geothermal energy is more widely accessible. Forward Looking With ongoing breakthroughs advancing us toward a more sustainable and clean energy future, the future of renewable energy seems bright. These technologies will become ever more important in our energy environment as they advance and become more reasonably priced. The emphasis is on producing energy in a manner that benefits the environment and its inhabitants.

As you walk down various current-day commercial districts throughout Vancouver, have you ever noticed houses that appear to pop out the top or the backside of store fronts? These store-house combinations can also be spotted throughout various photographs of streetscapes in the Archives’ holdings, and are often a product of residential streets evolving into commercial use areas. A fitting term for them is ‘buried houses’.[1] A buried house at 1120 Robson Street, 1974. Reference code: COV-S509-: CVA 778-341 It can be interesting to try to speculate what the layout of the original house was based on similar house designs of the period and try to figure out what was changed during the conversion to a commercial space. Some of the house-store combinations in the photos make it look as if little was altered other than the equivalent of a boxed in area sprouting out of the front of the house. However, others have clearly had extensive alterations, and of course generally have had even further alterations throughout the decades. A store front that appears more like a box addition to the exterior of a house on Davie Street between Thurlow and Bute Streets, 1928. Reference code: AM54-S4-: Str N266.1 Store fronts where it appears more extensive alterations were done to the houses to which they were attached. Denman Street, 1928. Reference code: AM54-S4-: Str N267.1 An instructive record on how exactly some of the original alterations were designed is an architectural plan for 1132 Robson Street. This plan is part of the City of Vancouver Series 393: Building Permit Application Architectural Drawings. Records in this series have been recently made more discoverable, thanks to ongoing efforts of Archives staff. The descriptions have been uploaded to our database, as previously the only way to search these records was via a card catalogue in our Reading Room. Additional metadata filled out previously scant descriptions, while errant metadata has been corrected. Stay tuned for a future blog post that details all the work that went into this. Architectural plan for alterations to 1132 Robson Street, 1927. Reference code: COV-S393-1-AP-0948 The details of the architectural plan for house alterations for 1132 Robson Street are quite interesting to examine. It is almost as if by looking closely at the notations one can visualize the alterations taking place in real-time. A bathtub is removed and the washroom is made smaller on the first floor, walls are repositioned, new window openings and stairs planned. Details of the architectural plan for alterations to 1132 Robson Street. Notations as to the removal of certain features, and the addition or changes of others can be seen. As part of chasing up more information on this particular building, I fortuitously (after conducting some database searches) came across a photograph of the house-store combination, taken by A.L. Yates in April 1957. The house that corresponds to the architectural plans is the one on the right, with Bonita’s dress shop. Bonita’s dress shop at the time, according to the city directories, was run by Becky Beckman. Living in the upstairs flat (listed as 1132 ½ Robson Street), was Roy Powell, a maintenance worker at the Alaska Pine building. Exterior of 1130 and 1132 Robson Street. 1130 Robson Street on the left was altered eleven years after 1132 Robson Street on the right. Note the different architectural facades in keeping with their respective alteration dates. Photo reference: AM54-S4-: Bu P508.63 The house itself was originally constructed in the 1890s. The exact date is somewhat unclear, as the building permit registers for the City do not go back that far. However, the year of the alterations is known from the 1927 building permit record. The permit lists the owner of the building as A.C. Akroyd, though this was likely a clerical error, as the water service applications for expanding water services to the address indicates the applicant as H.C. Akroyd of the real estate firm Richards, Akroyd & Gall. Building permit register entry for house alterations. Reference code: COV-S385– Water service application made by H.C. Akroyd for enlarged water connection. Reference code: COV-S293 The architect, listed both on the architectural drawing and the building permit, was William Frederick Gardiner. He was a local architect, better known for larger buildings, such as the Hutchinson Block at 429 West Pender Street. The value of the alterations to the house, according to the permit, was $4,000. The Hutchinson Block designed by architect W.F. Gardiner is the tall skinny building at the very right of the photo, as seen in 1932. Reference code: AM1535-: CVA 99-4179 From the time of the house alteration, there were a number of businesses that occupied the shop space, beginning with Florence and Lillian Lewis, dressmakers in 1928, followed by The Paris, another dressmaker business in 1929. Advertisement for the opening of The Paris from The Vancouver Sun, March 13, 1929 By 1930, the category of store shifted to that of tea and coffee emporium, owned and operated by Charles H. Knight. By the end of the 1930s, Knight’s business had moved from the premises, and was replaced once again by a women’s clothing shop under a rotating cast of names and proprietors. Bonita’s makes its first appearance as the shop’s name in 1946, with Mary Burgess as proprietor. Bert and Becky Beckman, according to the city directories, took over Bonita’s in 1948. Bert died in March 1950, but Becky continued to run the

Recently I have been reading and learning more about AI Hype Cycles. I first learned this term from Professor Kristen Thomasen when she did a guest lecture for our Legal Methodologies graduate class and discussed it with respect to her own research on drone technology and writing/researching during hype cycles. Since then, in almost AI-related seminar I have attended the term has come up with respect to the current buzz and attention being paid to AI. For example, Timnit Gebru in her talk for the GC Data Conference which I recently attended noted that a lot of what is being repackaged as new AI today was the same work in ‘big data’ that she studied many years back. For my own research, it is important to understand hype cycles to ground my research into more principled and foundational approaches so that I can write and explore the changes in technology while doing slow scholarship notwithstanding changing public discourse and the respective legislative/regulatory changes that might follow. A good starting point for understanding hype cycles, especially in the AI market, is the Gartner Hype Cycle. Who those who have not heard the term yet, I would recommend checking out the following video: Gartner reviews technological hype cycles through five phases: (1) innovation trigger; (2) peak of inflated expectations; (3) trough of disillusionment; (4) slope of enlightenment, and plateau of productivity. It is interesting to see how Gartner has labelled the current cycles: One of the most surprising things to me on first view is how automatic systems and deicsion intelligence is still on the innovation trigger – early phase on the hype cycle. The other is how many different types of AI technology are on the hype cycle and how many the general public actually know/engage with. I would suggest at most 50% of this list is in the vocabulary and use of even the most educated folks. I also find that from a laypersons perspective (which I consider myself on AI), challenges in classifying whether certain AI concepts fit one category or another or are a hybrid. This means AI societal knowledge is low and even for some of the items that are purportedly on the Slope of Enlightment or Plateau of Productivity. It is important to note before I move on that that the AI Hype Cycle also has been used in terms outside of the Gartner definition, more in a more criticial sense of technologies that are in a ‘hype’ phase that will eventually ebb and flow. A great article on this and how it affects AI definitions is the piece by Eric Siegel in the Harvard Business Review how the hype around Supervised Machine Learning has been rebranded into a hype around AI and has been spun into this push for Artificial General Intelligence that may or may not be achievable.   Relevance to the Immigration Law Space The hype cycle is relevant to Canadian immigration law in a variety of ways. First, on the face, Gartner is a contracting partner of IRCC which means they are probably bringing in the hype cycle into their work and their advice to them. Second, it brings into question again how much AI-based automated decision-making systems (ADM) is still in the beginning of the hype cycle. It make sense utilizing this framework to understand why these systems are being so heralded by Government in their policy guides and presentation, but also that there could be a peak of inflated expectations on the horizon that may lead to more hybrid decision-making or perhaps a step back from use. The other question is about whether we are (and I am a primary perpetrator of this) overly-focused on automated-decision making systems without considering the larger AI supply chain that will likely interact. Jennifer Cobbe et al talk about this in their paper “Understanding accountability in algorithmic supply chains” which was assigned for reading in my Accountable Computer Systems course. Not only are there different AI components, providers, downstream/upstream uses, and actors that may be involved in the AI development and application process. Using immigration as an example, there may be one third-party SAAS that checks photos, another software using black-box AI may engage in facial recognition, and ultimately, internal software that does machine-learning triaging or automation of refusal notes generation. The question of how we hold these systems and their outputs accountable will be important, especially if various components of the system are on different stages of the hype cycle or not disclosed in the final decision to the end user (or immigration applicant). Third, I think that the idea of hype cycles is very relevant to my many brave colleagues who are investing their time and energy into building their own AI tools or implementing sofware solutions for private sector applicants. The hype cycle may give some guidance as to the innovation they are trying to bring and the timeframe they have to make a splash into the market. Furthermore, immigration (as a dynamic and rapidly changing area of law) and immigrants (as perhaps needing different considerations with respect to technological use, access, or norms) may have their own considerations that may alter Gartner’s timelines. It will be very interesting to continue to monitor how AI hype cycles drive both private and public innovation in this emerging space of technologies that will significantly impact migrant lives. The post What is an AI Hype

On Wednesday (February 7), City Council will be considering a proposed Gastown Summer 2024 Water Street Pedestrian Zone Pilot Project . A long title, but the gist of the project involves a six-week transformation of Water Street into a mix of car-free and car-lite spaces, along with changes to permitting to increase the size of patios and allow new types of street vending. The pilot is part of a larger initiative to test out ways to pedestrianize parts of Gastown, and linked to a Gastown Public Spaces Plan that’s currently being developed. Cities across Canada (and around the world) are testing new approaches to people-friendly streets. Last year, Montreal alone rolled out 12 large-scale pedestrian transformations across its boroughs. Here in Vancouver, we’ve seen smaller-scale pilots on Granville Street, along with a roster of single-day events in other neighbourhoods. The Water Street pilot is an overdue step in creating livelier, more people-friendly streets. The VPSN wrote to Council and offered our support for the pilot project, along with five suggestions which we felt would strengthen the pilot. 1. Increase the duration of the pilot project Culture change, particularly when related to transportation and business practices, takes time to ‘filter outward’ to the broader public, tourists, and specific user groups. For those engaged in programming the space, the opportunity for small-scale testing, learning and adjustment also takes time. Good quality “tactical” interventions are iterative in nature. A key challenge in this regard: the current pilot is only six weeks in length, and any construction-related delays will further constrain an already-narrow window of opportunity. Recommendation: We suggest extending the pilot through to the end of September, and ideally to Thanksgiving (mid-October). 2. Undertake public life studies before, during, and after the pilot. Public life studies assess both the volume of people in a space, but more importantly what they’re doing and how they are spending time. More detailed analysis can also explore key demographic considerations, people’s motivations for coming to a public space, their sentiments about the space, and other considerations. Undertaking these studies at key milestones can provide a much clearer picture about the efficacy of a placemaking project. The current pilot only outlines a plan to undertake vehicle and pedestrian counts (p.5). Recommendation: Direct staff to undertake more detailed public life studies at key project milestones. Provide additional funding to support this work. 3. Prepare for uncertainty – particularly with automobile and tour bus routing. We have long stated that the Gastown transportation network is a ‘sticky problem.’ The existing block and alley configuration, and mix of uses (residential, commercial, tourist, etc.) makes the situation complex. We confess an uncertainty about the ‘dumbbell’ approach outlined by staff: two car-free “gateways” (Cordova to Cambie and a portion of Maple Tree Square), and two interior car-light blocks. This limits some of the larger programming opportunities that might otherwise be available, and also poses a challenge about the legibility of the changes to both car drivers and pedestrians alike. We recognize that different ideas will need to be tested to determine the best long-term solution. Recommendation: Ensure that traffic monitoring methodologies test for pedestrian/automobile conflict. We further suggest detailed monitoring at Maple Tree Square and Blood Alley, as the diversions proposed in this area could pose challenges for the use of these public spaces. 4. Create opportunities for community-led interventions. As presently drafted, the Gastown Pilot report focuses mainly on the enabling conditions for late summer activation, and a series of initiatives to test changes to permitting (e.g., for larger patios, sidewalk merchandise, etc.). These are important, but we suggest that you should also be looking to enable opportunities for other types of placemaking – in particular, community-led activations. Having organized several events in Gastown over the years and can speak to the popularity of these events. They don’t cost a lot, can engage the community and volunteers, and will create a more inclusive and interesting public space. Recommendation: As part of the summertime pilot budget, create a small stream for community-led placemaking projects that could be integrated into the overall programming framework. Ensure that these are included in any monitoring and evaluation processes. 5. Don’t lose sight of other opportunities. In our May 9, 2023 letter to Council, we noted that there are a number of opportunities to enhance Gastown public spaces. We recognize that there is only so much you can do in one pilot project, but we would be remiss if we didn’t use this opportunity to say don’t forget about the following opportunities: Using street-end segments of Cambie, Abbott, and Carrall (north of Water) for gathering areas Re-opening the CPR right-of-way that runs diagonally between Columbia and Pender Placemaking in commercial laneways (e.g. Homer-Cambie-Cordova Alley, Harbour Light Alley) Introducing a linkage to connect CRAB Park with Gastown Integrating public space network connections to Granville Street and the Waterfront Hub This is an ambitious project, and we are excited to see where the discussion goes at Council. With any luck, we’ll all be able to enjoy a stroll down the middle of the street come July of this year!

    Welcome back folks! I had a bit of a busy several weeks since my last post – as I am taking an accountable computer systems course, learning about encryption, block chain, TOR and all the cool things I wish I knew earlier! I have not forgotten about the Li decision. I will admit I have lost sleep over it, been confused over it, and had numerous client consultations over it. The recent development of the Named Research Organizations list, although in a much different context, have started to shed light on what institutions may be targetted and flagged. I presume many of these institutions (if not all) are risk indicators in the Integrity Trends Analysis Tool and may trigger the automation of the Security Screening Automation process. Also, I should be on a podcast with Steven Meurrens and Deanna Okun-Nachoff talking about this decision shortly. I think it will be a fascinating conversation. Will share link! For the purposes of this blog, however, let us jump back into the Federal Court’s decision in Li v. Canada (MCI) 2023 FC 1753 to get to the heart of the Chief Justice’s analysis. Let’s start now with VI. Issues at paragraph 24. I do not yet have the benefit of the parties submissions to determination how the issues were framed in factums. Based on what the Chief Justice writes later in his VIII. Analysis at para 29, it seems like this question was framed by the Applicant. Nevertheless, I think there might be some tension in the framing of the issues and then the setting out of the standard of review in VII. Standard of Review where the Chief Justice re-iterates that the Court’s limited role within the judicial context, the introduction the case itself, and the eventual function of attempting to carve out a definition for espionage. I will note that this is not rare, however. We have seen it in many contexts, and indeed the Chief Justice has also engaged in a similar discussion of the role of a comparative approach in the s.25 H&C test in Huang v. Canada (MCI), 2019 FC 265. Finally, for the purposes of this blog to keep it shorter I will focus only on paragraphs 29 to 50 and leave for the next blog the “Application to the Decision” section. Moving to the Analysis in Section VIII. The first issue is whether the Officer erred in applying an overly broad term ‘espionage’ under s.34(1)(a) IRPA (see para 29). The Chief Justice notes that there is no definition of the term “espionage” in IRPA, or it appears, in any Act of Parliament. This is crucial because I think it highlights a clear legislative/policy gap that IRCC will need to look to fill. There are some legislation that engage in for example a definition of economic espionage in the Security of Information Act, but the context of the act and who it has been used to prosecute does make it very different and difficult to translate to the immigration setting. I see this omission as an emerging gap for legislators to step in. There are two key paragraphs in Li involving the definition of espionage, that frame the decision. The Chief Justice writes at paragraph 31 and 32: [31] However, Mr. Li submits that the term “espionage” has the following five characteristics: (1) There is an aspect of secrecy, clandestineness, surreptitiousness, or covertness in the way the information in question is gathered. (2) The information is collected without the other parties’ knowledge and consent. (3) The collector, by the time they are actively engaging in information gathering, does so under the control and direction of a foreign entity. (4) The information is regarded as secretive, as opposed to simply private. (5) The act is against Canada or contrary to Canada’s interests. [32] I disagree. In my view, the jurisprudence supports a broader definition of “espionage.” At its most basic level, the concept of “espionage” contemplates the secret, clandestine, surreptitious or covert gathering or reporting of information to a foreign state or other foreign entity or person. When such activity is against Canada or is contrary to Canada’s interests, it falls within the purview of paragraph 34(1)(a). There are several complications created by the definition generating process: (1) what constitues reporting? (2) what constitutes information? (3) what constitutes a foreign entity? (think of foreign-controlled companies operating in Canada for example) (4) who is a foreign person? (is it entirely immigration-status related or more than that?) (5) We also return back again to what are Canadian interests and are the relevant times of when actions occured and interests considered material? Also, by way of the way it is gramatically structured does the reporting of information to a foreign entity/person have any modifier. It appears in the Chief Justice’s decision it can be public information, but surely the gathering or reporting of any public information to a foreign person would be an overbroad definition. The Chief Justice summarizes at paragraph 47: [ 47] In summary, and having regard to the foregoing, I consider that the term  “espionage”  contemplates (i) the secret, clandestine, surreptitious or covert gathering of information on behalf of a foreign government or other foreign entity or person, or (ii) the reporting or communication of information, whether surreptitiously or publicly gathered, to such a recipient. I further consider it reasonable to include within the definition of  “espionage”  the unauthorized reporting or communication of such information to a third party acting as an intermediary for the transmission of

As of late last month another 7,083 Heritage Inventory photographs and 1,001 Intersection photographs have been uploaded to our online database, with a smaller subset on flickr. These photographs come from the Vancouver (B.C.) Planning Department and the Vancouver (B.C.) Engineering Services Department respectively. These 8,084 items are further demonstration of our ongoing efforts to make our negatives more accessible through the process of digitization. The digitization of these photographs would not have been possible without funding from the British Columbia History Digitization Program and the Friends of the Vancouver City Archives. 1595 West 15th – The Brambly Apartments. Reference code: COV-S644-: CVA 1095-08660 All film negatives in our repository are kept in the Archives’ frozen storage unit for preservation purposes. When photographs have not been digitized it requires at least 24 hours notice for staff to pull the records from the freezer and allow them to come up to the temperature of the reading room, where researchers still need to use a light box and often a magnifying glass to view them properly. In addition to having to conduct this type of research on-site, as opposed to from the comfort of your own home (which you can do with any of our digitized material), the contents of a negative can often be difficult to decipher as the colours and tones are inverted. The image below is good example of this. In negative form it was difficult to determine what the photographer was trying to capture, as the snow simply made the streets look very dark. Once digitized however, it was clear that these sixteen nearly identical photographs were the photographer’s attempt to capture the presence of this rare substance. Snow on Gastown streets, 1 of 16. Reference code: COV-S644-: CVA 1095-09235 Similarly to previously uploaded Heritage Inventory photographs, which you can read about here and here, this batch of photographs also primarily depicts the exterior of built structures from everything such as houses and apartment buildings to churches, schools, and commercial buildings. 57 West Cordova Street – Travellers Hotel and adjacent parking lot. Reference code: COV-S644-: CVA 1095-09864 Almost all of Vancouver’s neighbourhoods are depicted but again there is a strong focus on the Gastown, Chinatown, and Downtown areas. Interspersed among photos of barbershops and Shaughnessy mansions are the occasional outliers, such as photos of a scale inside the Canadian Pacific Railway Station, or photos of a Maple Tree Square model from the late 1970s. Gastown Model. Reference code: COV-S644-: CVA 1095-08945 Taken between 1964 and 1977, these photographs are the result of research conducted by Heritage Planners and private heritage contractors on behalf of the Planning Department. Many of these photographs have corresponding textual records, located in Series S682, which provide more detail on the structure. Details may include the size, map coordinates, and owner of the property; information about the original architect, engineer, and contractor; and notes on any historical or architectural importance. The file location for related textual records can be found in the “Associated materials” section of the photograph’s description. Having fulfilled their primary purpose, these records now exist to aid individuals in their various research pursuits. Heritage Inventory photographs are often consulted by researchers conducting house history inquiries, historians looking into specific neighbourhoods or historical buildings, and genealogists tracking the various residences of family members. Most photographs only depict the built structure in question, but some researchers might get lucky and catch a glimpse of a beloved family member relaxing on their front lawn. 1214 West 7th Avenue. Reference code: COV-S644-: CVA 1095-10949 The newly uploaded Intersection photographs are an addition to the pre-existing 1,625 photographs and 337 photostatic reproductions of intersections in Subseries 1 – Intersection photographs of Series S505 – Transportation Division traffic management photographs. Falling under the jurisdiction of the Vancouver (B.C.) Transportation Division (a subordinate of Vancouver (B.C.) Engineering Services), these photographs were taken at intersections looking in each cardinal direction for the purpose of traffic analysis. These Intersection photographs are a natural companion to the Heritage Inventory project as both series cover many of the same geographical locations, and therefore many of the same built structures. While the Heritage Inventory photographs were taken as early as 1964 and no later than 1977, the Intersection photographs were taken in the early 80s (predominantly 1982) and therefore allow researchers to study the changes and similarities across nearly twenty years. Vine Street and 4th Avenue intersection. Reference code: COV-S505-1-: 2019-103.0559 While the vast majority of the photos in this series depict city street corners from the vantage point of the middle of the road, every now and then there is a photograph that sheds light on the process of this project, as shown in the photograph below. Here we can see an individual in a City of Vancouver car holding up a clipboard with the letter “M” on it. This was the photographer’s way of denoting the beginning of a new roll of film. When negatives are scanned, digitized, and uploaded to the database we often lose sight of some of the original organization of the records, but it is photographs like this that allow us to consider how original order may have played an important role to the creator. They also give us a chance to reflect on how different city vehicles look today. Person holding “M” sign out of a City of Vancouver car. Reference code: COV-S505-1-: 2019-103.0314 So whether

Earlier today, the VPSN wrote to Mayor and Council requesting that they ‘press pause’ on the motion to dissolve the Park Board. The proposed directive, introduced by Mayor Sim at a media event on December 6, seeks provincial support to change the Vancouver Charter, eliminating the need to an elected Park Board. Our letter encourages the City to create a better, more transparent process for looking at ways to improve. This was not intended as a broader rejection of the idea of reform. Indeed, we support efforts to improve our parks and community centres. We are also of the opinion that there ARE opportunities to strengthen matters related to their governance, performance, design, programming and stewardship of parks. However, the motion as proposed has a number of critical implications. In the one week since it was hastily introduced, there has been little opportunity to properly evaluate the concerns that the motion purports to address. We are particularly concerned about the process through which this motion was advanced, and the conflation of governance considerations (i.e. the elected park board), with operational and planning considerations. We note that many of the considerations identified in the Council motion – questions of user experience, service delivery, and operational efficiency – can be addressed without the loss of the democratic opportunities that come with an elected Park Board. So, to be clear – we are open to a process that: (a) provides a forum to clearly identify issues and areas of concern with parks and the Park Board, and (b) provides a fair opportunity to evaluate opportunities (and options) for improvement. We used our letter to request that Mayor & Council amend the motion to introduce a minimum six month process that allows further public discussion and exploration of the core issues and areas of concern. We feel that this is a fair compromise that would ensure clarity around the identification of issues & potential solutions. And yes, as part of this, the process could include revisiting the division or organization of powers as set out in the Vancouver Charter.

A reminder that the Archives will be closed for the holidays at 5:00 pm on Friday, December 22, 2023, and will reopen on Tuesday, January 2, 2024, at 10:00 am. A “Connemara Donkey” for Christmas Greetings, 1957 (composite of front and inside of card). Folks familiar with exploring archival records know that they can sometimes come across something unexpected during their research. This year’s holiday post is an example of how the threads of human activity can be sprinkled throughout an individual’s personal papers deposited at an archives. The Paul Yee fonds (AM1523) contains issues of Chinatown News that he collected, a biweekly magazine that was the established in 1953 and the first Chinese-Canadian newspaper to be published in English here in Vancouver. Tucked inside the pages of an issue from 1957 is a homemade holiday card that the writer sent using one of their travel photos. Aren’t donkeys perfect for a little cheer! The Aug. 1957 issue of Chinatown News with a surprise inside. Reference code: AM1523-S3-F162. The message inside reads, “I hope to unite later on but want to get this off before it is too late for Christmas. We had a wonderful 3 weeks holiday in Ireland this summer when this full length portrait (!) overleaf was taken. Hope you are all well at home.” Happy holidays!

We are excited to announce a new accrual to the Harold Kalman fonds (AM363). Kalman is an architectural historian and heritage planner with an extensive body of work of local, national, and international significance. He is well known within the heritage preservation community for both his scholarship and his practice. Kalman is the author of many articles and books including A History of Canadian Architecture and the Archives reading room favourite Exploring Vancouver, the recipient of numerous awards and honours, and was made a member of the Order of Canada in 2012 for his work to study, protect and share Canada’s built heritage. Though now living in Victoria and (mostly) retired, he spent most of his professional career working in Vancouver, first teaching the history of art and architecture as a professor in the UBC Department of Fine Arts, and then later as a heritage consultant, doing business under the name Commonwealth Historic Resource Management (CHRM). While winding down his practice, Kalman donated his personal and professional records to the Archives in a series of donations between 2011 and 2022. The largest portion of these are the project files (also referred to by Kalman as the “job files”) from his work with CHRM, based in Ottawa from 1975-1988, and in Vancouver from 1988-2015. CHRM provided architectural conservation advice and interpretive planning services related to the conservation, interpretation, and management of built and natural heritage resources. These records have been processed and are now available as AM363-S07 : Consultancy project files. Documented within the donated records are 455 projects. Of these, 101 were for sites in the Greater Vancouver region, 100 in other parts of British Columbia, 225 in the rest of Canada, and 29 international projects. The list of notable Vancouver projects that Kalman consulted on is too long for this post, but include sites such as Woodward’s, the Marine Building, Tudor Manor, Hotel Georgia, Firehall Arts Centre, the Vogue, Stanley, Orpheum and Queen Elizabeth Theatres, and the Chinatown and Gastown neighborhoods. Graphic from one of the Woodwards Building Development Statement of Significance project files. Reference code: AM363-S07-F1698 There is considerable variation in the scope and scale of the projects. Some are very limited, such as creating heritage preservation recommendations used to restore the subject to its original condition, or to preserve key characteristics when adapting the building to a new use. These can be for individual sites, buildings, or even part of a building (like a particular façade or feature). One folder from project D579, renovations to the Queen Elizabeth Theatre. Reference code: AM363-S07-F1054 At the other end of the spectrum, there are projects that encompass multiple sites over large areas–heritage inventories that identify and catalogue significant buildings or sites in a given region, conducting feasibility studies for new museums and other cultural institutions, creating interpretive plans for heritage sites, and writing heritage conservation guidelines and policies. Site drawing from Whitby Psychiatric Hospital project. Reference code: AM363-S07-F1662 The types of records found within the files varies, depending considerably on the nature of the project. Unsurprisingly, some projects are documented much better than others. A given file may contain primary sources collected in the course of research, excerpts of copies from relevant secondary works (some difficult to find), interviews, photographs, maps and site plans, histories of the subject site or building, and drafts and final reports or recommendations prepared for the client. Interview recordings and transcripts from the Illustrated History of the Hotel Georgia project (note transcripts are available now, but audio recordings are restricted until the tapes are digitized). Reference code: AM363-S07-F0678 We expect that the files in this series will be a valuable resource to researchers interested in heritage preservation, architectural history, planning and development, and other enquiries related to built environments. They are a great place to start your research into a particular site, as Kalman’s files frequently contain historical details accumulated from authoritative sources. Please note, however, that the files are stored at our satellite site and take time to retrieve; reference staff will advise on delivery date when you make your request. These project files are form only a part of the records donated by Kalman in the past decade. Expect to see further announcements of records available for research within this fonds as they become available, including a substantial volume of digital project files that are also part of this series.