Talk:Sinclair Centre

message: 'elite' boutiques and 'landmark' buildings are clear descriptions of Weasel words and Glittering generality. If they really are 'elite', then in what way, why, says who. Why is it a landmark? Who says? Where's the list of landmark buildings? Is it on it? Why should I believe you? (Although you may well have some very good points, how do I know you're not just promoting them?) You say it's a landmark building - says who? Why should I do my homework - can you support what you're saying?
Looks a bit too much like marketing speak. peterl 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elite, meaning these stores are expensive and therefore tailored to an exclusive, rich, class of people that some of us call "elites." Where I come from, the word has negative connotations. Elite according to who? The New York Times is the cited source that uses that particular word. Every other google hit with a description of this mall uses a similar adjective meaning the same thing: take a look: "designer boutiques," "classic elegance," classy, chi-chi, etc., etc. Landmark? It's a heritage building that's visually distinctive enough to serve as an identifier of Vancouver to anyone familiar with the city, as with the other "landmarks" on the Vancouver landmark template. Note that others on the list include a sports stadium, a rickety old cannery, and a military armoury -- hardly associations that a marketing firm wishing to puff up a shopping mall would make. These are words with precise dictionary meanings appropriate to the subject. Not all adjectives are weasel words and glittering generalities that require a specific attribution. Is the Eiffel Tower tall? Is the Pacific Ocean deep? Does Armani make his suits for rich people? bobanny 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a landmark building in the city, as per any local architectural source. The stores contained therein are exclusive and cater to the wealthy. We are not promoting the building. You should believe this because of good faith or barring that, a bit of reading about the building (through the sources on the page!). How else would you want us to prove that we're not just promoting the building, now that burden of proof has been arbitrarily placed without consulting the supplied sources? Thanks--Keefer | Talk 21:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Needless to say (ahem, Bobanny) it needs a section and a subarticle on its occupation during the workers' uprisings of the 1930s....which is why I find its current yupped-out state so ironic (there was, for a while, a display of photos from the events in one of the lobbies - it's not still there is it?); but likewise the whole march that led to it, and the overall political crisis of which the Battle of Ballantyne Pier was only a part.  Sinclair Centre, in its old guise as the Main Post Office, was one of the major venues.  Another item, which I'll add to article requests on the Vancouver project, is Larwill Park, the old playing field and assembly/drill ground opposite the Beatty Armoury, for a long time the bus depot, now a parking lot, soon to be some megalowhatsit - the new cultural venue/development? - named for Fred Larwill, who lived in a house on the corner of the field; baseball and football (soccer) and rugger pitch.  Apparently consensus is it got paved over while the men were away at war (WWII), as it was a popular playing field - but also pivotal in political assemblies of various kinds over the years, including the anti-Oriental riots but also during the '30s...the first highland game were held in Maple Tree Square by George Black, butcher and owner of the Sunnyside and New Brighton/Hastings, who himself was a strongman; but in those days field sports were played at Brockton Point; Brockton Oval is built later but continued the tradition of that being a sporting ground, which AFAIK is unbroken since then....Skookum1 07:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Double-plus ironic because the only reason I made this stub was so Bloody Sunday (1938) wouldn't have a redlink. Yeah, it should be mentioned, but my intent was just to create a quick stub. Maybe I'll just stick in a "see also."  bobanny 12:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've never heard it referred to as Larwill Park. At least in the 30s it was always referred to as the Cambie Street Grounds. Park history is interesting, just because our conceptions of what they are has changed so much. Powell St and Cambie St were just these big fields where huge masses of people got together for sports, entertainment, riots, whatever. Could you imagine if 10-15,000 people got together today in Oppenheimer Park like they did in 1938, or 35,000 in Stanley Park like on May Day in 1935? It'd have to be some big corporate thing like the fireworks these days. With the exception of Grandview Park, most of them just sit empty for decoration and the occasional dog-walker, and some are pretty small.bobanny 12:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just saw a reference to Larwell Park. It looks like Cambie Street grounds was the name used when it was just an unofficial patch of public space, and it became Larwell when it was officially designated in 1902, but the old name was still commonly used. bobanny 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel descriptions 

message: There's nothing in the article about the original architect, only the firm that supervised the renovations.Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  original architect?