UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The PNE prize home : Tradition and change Mackenzie, M. Elizabeth 2005

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2005-0261.pdf [ 56.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0091966.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091966-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091966-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091966-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091966-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091966-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091966-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0091966-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0091966.ris

Full Text

THE PNE PRIZE HOME : TRADITION AND CHANGE by M. ELIZABETH MACKENZIE B.A. (Hons), Queen's University, 1974 B.Arch (Hons). University of British Columbia, 1980 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ADVANCED STUDIES IN ARCHITECTURE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Architecture) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 2005 © Elizabeth MacKenzie, 2005 ABSTRACT In 1934, a proposal was put forward to the Vancouver Exhibition Association's Board of Control to construct a 'model bungalow,' charge visitors ten cents admission and draw their ticket stubs on the last day of the exhibition - Labour Day - to select the winner of the house. The $3,000 house was moved to its lot a block away from the fairgrounds by a team of horses. Seventy years later, a modular home building company constructed a Prize Home for the renamed Pacific National Exhibition (PNE), the Lower Mainland's annual fair. Worth $700,000, its design was a blend of East Coast Cape Cod and West Coast casual styles. Fairgoers and others (online) bought five-dollar tickets. After Labour Day, the house modules were moved by truck and barge to its present location on the Sunshine Coast, many miles from the fairground. Society's values are expressed through architecture and our homes tell us much about our individual preferences. The Prize Homes have appealed to a large middle ground and, as society has become more conservative, so has the Prize Home. The modern homes, popular through the early 1980s, have been replaced with more traditional styles just as the world of possibilities and modernity of those earlier years have been replaced with our more complacent era, perhaps more premodern than postmodern With few exceptions, the Prize Home has captured the imagination of fairgoers. Buying a ticket means buying a dream - a single family home and the life it entails. Two-hour lineups for entry to the home and increasing ticket sales continue in spite of recent competition from other home lotteries. Increasing profits, promotion of local manufacturers and products and attraction itself have been major goals for the PNE. The established format of the Prize Home coupled with the lure of the single-family home have combined with changing players, styles, materials and final site locations to continually produce the dream come true. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter 2 THE MODEL BUNGALOW 1934 9 1. Prize Home History 2. Representative Example : 1934 3. Review Chapter 3 THE PREFABS 1952-1959 24 1. Prize Home History 2. Representative Example : 1957 3. Review Chapters THE MODERNS 1960-1975 1. Prize Home History 2. Representative Example : 1964 3. Review Chapter 5 WEST COAST STYLE 1976-1986 1. Prize Home History 2. Representative Example : 1984 3. Review Chapter 6 BATTLE OF THE BOOSTERS 1987-1993 1. Prize Home History •2. Representative Example : 1989 3. Review iv Chapter 7 THE RESORTS 1994-2004 115 1. Prize Home History 2. Representative Example : 2001 3. Review Chapter 8 CONCLUSIONS NOTES SOURCES CONSULTED 135 143 149 APPENDIX 156 V LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Model Bungalow, 1934 (City of Vancouver Archives 1 [CVA] 180-597). Figure 2 PNE Prize Home at PNE, 2004 2 Figure 3 The Ideal Bungalow Promotional Brochure 1934 (BC Archives 10 Nwp728.37I19). Figure 4 Spanish Revival House at 171 West 23rd, Vancouver, 2005. 13 Figure 5 Barber House, 3846 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, 2005. 14 Figure 6 B.C. Binnings' House, 2968 Mathers, West Vancouver, 2005. 15 Figure 7 The Model Bungalow at VEA, 1934. 19 Figure 8 The Model Bungalow at 2812 Dundas, Vancouver 2004. 19 Figure 9 The Model Bungalow Main Floor Plan. 21 Figure 10 D.H. Copps House by Ron Thorn, 4755 Belmont, Vancouver, 2005.29 Figure 11 Typical post-war bungalow at 3118 West 17th, Vancouver, 2005. 29 Figure 12 Typical split-level houses, 2300 block McMullen, Vancouver, 2005.30 Figure 13 PNE Prize Home, 1952 (CVA 180-1702). 31 Figure 14 PNE Prize Home, 1953 (CVA 180-2307). 32 Figure 15 PNE Prize Home 1954 (CVA 180-2660). 31 Figure 16 PNE Prize Home 1955 at 1088,Calverhall, North Vancouver, 2003.32 Figure 17 PNE Prize Home 1956 (CVA 180-3139)! 32 Figure 18 PNE Prize Home 1958 at 6507 Lougheed Highway, 2004. 33 Figure 19 PNE Prize Home 1959 (CVA 180-3948). 33 Figure 20 PNE Prize Home 1957 at 6517 Lougheed Highway, 2003. 35 vi Figure 21 PNE Prize Home 1957 Main Floor Plan. 36 Figure 22 PNE Prize Home 1957 photo from living room to entry, 2004. 37 Figure 23 PNE Prize Home 1956 Typical bedroom furniture for boys' room (CVA 180-3142). 40 Figure 24 Vancouver Specials, 390 East 17th, Vancouver, 2005. 46 Figure 25 Homes of Distinction Brochure (photo courtesy of Keith Beedie), 1964. 49 Figure 26 PNE Prize Home 1960 (photo courtesy of Keith Beedie), 1960. 50 Figure 27 PNE Prize Home 1961 (photo courtesy of Keith Beedie), 1961. 51 Figure 28 PNE Prize Home 1962 (photo courtesy of Keith Beedie), 1962. 51 Figure 29 PNE Prize Home 1963 at 7551 Chutter, Burnaby, (photo courtesy of Keith Beedie), 1963. 53 Figure 30 PNE Prize Home 1963 at 7551 Chutter, Burnaby, 2003. 53 Figure 31 PNE Prize Home 1965 at 7782 Kerrywood, Burnaby, 2004. 55 Figure 32 PNE Prize Home 1966 (CVA 180-3943). 55 Figure 33 Bar-o-Gold advertised in 1968 PNE Promotional Brochure 56 (PNE Archives). Figure 34 PNE Prize Home 1969 (CVA 180-4304). 58 Figure 35 PNE Prize Home 1970 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 59 Figure 36 PNE Prize Home 1971 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 60 Figure 37 PNE Prize Home 1972 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 60 Figure 38 PNE Prize Home 1973 at 3030, Greenwood, Burnaby, 2003. 60 Figure 39 PNE Prize Home 1974 at 7515, Greenwood Place, Burnaby, 61 2003. Figure 40 PNE Prize Home 1975 perspective (CVA 180-4304). 62 Figure 41 PNE Prize Home 1964 at 7880 Kraft, Burnaby, 2003. 63 Figure 42 PNE Prize Home 1964 Main Floor Plan. 64 Figure 43 Typical postmodern house, 4560 Belmont, Vancouver, 2005. 70 Figure 44 New Vancouver Special, 4302 West 9th, Vancouver, 2005. 72 Figure 45 PNE Prize Home 1976 at 1384 Haversley, Coquitlam, 2004. 73 Figure 46 PNE Prize Home 1977 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 74 Figure 47 PNE Prize Home 1978 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 75 Figure 48 PNE Prize Home 1979 at 7471 Lawrence, Burnaby, 2003. 75 Figure 49 PNE Prize Home 1980 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 76 Figure 50 PNE Prize Home 1981 (Vancouver Sun Archives) 1981. 76 Figure 51 PNE Prize Home 1981 at 2324 129B Avenue, White Rock, 2005. 77 Figure 52 PNE Prize Home 1982 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 82 Figure 53 PNE Prize Home 1982, 16080 13th, White Rock, 2004. 82 Figure 54 PNE Prize Home 1983 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 83 Figure 55 PNE Prize Home 1983, 15955 19th, White Rock, 2004. 84 Figure 56 PNE Prize Home 1985 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 85 Figure 57 PNE Prize Home 1985, 10523 Fraser Glen, Surrey, 2004. 85 Figure 58 PNE Prize Home 1986 at 600 Clearwater, Coquitlam, 2003. 87 Figure 59 PNE Prize Home 1984 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 89 Figure 60 PNE Prize Home 1984, 10430 Fraser Glen, Surrey, 2004. 89 Figure 61 PNE Prize Home 1984 Floor Plan. 91 Figure 62 Monster house and neighbour, 2337 and 2339 West Ring Edward, Vancouver, 2005. 97 Figure 63 PNE Prize Home 1987 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 99 Figure 64 PNE Prize Home 1988 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 100 Figure 65 PNE Prize Home 1988, 10658 Glenwood, Surrey, 2004. 101 Figure 66 PNE Prize Home 1993 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 102 Figure 67 PNE Prize Home 1990 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 104 Figure 68 PNE Prize Home 1990, 14020 86th, Surrey, 2004. 104 Figure 69 PNE Prize Home 1991 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 106 Figure 70 PNE Prize Home 1992 Photograph (PNE Archives). 107 Figure 71 PNE Prize Home 1989 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 108 Figure 72 PNE Prize Home 1989, 16749 Beechwood, Surrey, 2004. 108 Figure 73 PNE Prize Home 1989 Floor Plan. 110 Figure 74 PNE Prize Home 1989 Promotional Brochure sketch from entry 112 through living room (PNE Archives). Figure 75 PNE Prize Home 1994 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 117 Figure 76 PNE Prize Home 1995 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 118 Figure 77 PNE Prize Home 1996 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 119 Figure 78 PNE Prize Home 1997 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 120 Figure 79 PNE Prize Home 1998 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 121 Figure 80 PNE Prize Home 1999 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 122 Figure 81 PNE Prize Home 2000 Photo (PNE Archives) 123 Figure 82 PNE Prize Home 2002 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 125 Figure 83 PNE Prize Home 2003 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 126 Figure 84 Sustainable Condo 2004 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 127 Figure 85 2004 PNE Prize Home Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives), 2004.128 Figure 86 PNE Prize Home 2001 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 129 Figure 87 PNE Prize Home 2001 Main and Upper Floor Plans. 131 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It has been a great pleasure to work with my committee members - Linda Brock and Peter Ward - enthusiastic supporters and knowledgeable reviewers. My thanks to them both and to John O'Brian, my outside reader. The staff at the PNE, particularly Debie Leyshon and Anne Barbosa, have been on the front lines of the Prize Home and deserve my grateful appreciation as do the staff at the City of Vancouver Archives. Of course, my remarkable family has had to live through this extended experience. What can I say? 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In 1934, a proposal was put forward to the Vancouver Exhibition Association's (VEA) Board of Control by Mr. L. C. Thomas of the Vancouver Lumber Company. The minutes of the meeting record "a scheme for the construction of a model bungalow of the very latest and highest type...to cost $3,000.00. It was also proposed to charge patrons ten cents admission to see the interior, each patron to retain a stub of the ticket. At the end of the Exhibition, a draw would take place and the holder of the winning number would be given the bungalow."1 Figure 1 Model Bungalow 1934, (CVA). This home, pictured in Figure 1, was won by Leonard Frewin, a twenty-seven year old who, unable to afford a home, could not marry his sweetheart. He took a chance with his dime and lived happily with his family for many decades in the home that was "built of the best building materials throughout, modern in every respect"2. The house, 2 furnished by Hudson's Bay Company, was moved to the fifty-foot wide lot a block away from the Hastings Park fairgrounds by a team of horses. Originally donated to the city in 1889 for use as a park, Hastings has been home to an annual fair since 1910. Vancouver Exhibition Association, the first name of the fair, was changed to Pacific National Exhibition (PNE) after the Second World War. Seventy years later, in 2004, the Prize Home of the PNE, shown in Figure 2, was a blend of East Coast Cape Cod style and West Coast casual, manufactured in modules in Abbotsford by a factory-built house company, Britco. Figure 2 2004 PNE Prize Home at PNE, 2004 This house was worth $700,000 and the winning ticket, which sold at five for $25, was purchased by Laurie Tyson. She was delighted to be leaving her single 720 square foot trailer and moving in with her daughter and four-year-old granddaughter to the home.3 It was exclusively furnished by the Eddie Bauer Company. Promotional material on 3 the Prize Home's web site stated that "The structure combined with the exquisite finishing materials creates a cozy yet elegant feeling for the home."4 It was dismantled and moved by truck and barge to its present half-acre location on the Sunshine Coast, two hours and a ferry trip away from the fairgrounds. Although much has changed over the past seven decades and the PNE Prize Home concept has altered considerably, it continues to be an enormous success - two-hour lineups to view the house are the norm and profits continue to rise. Changes to the Prize Home have reflected the changes of its time and site. Many of the significant benefits of the first Model Bungalow - profit, boosterism and the Prize Home as an attraction itself - are still important today. It is this combination of traditional format and change with the times that has made the Prize Home a success and that form the basis of this thesis. These themes are intertwined. The Prize Home has been concerned, first and foremost, with economic gain for the PNE. The profit from ticket sales has been used to fund non revenue-producing programmes such as the 4H club competitions and multi-cultural, children's and seniors' events. A 1981 memo from the PNE staff to the Prize Home Committee, in helping them select a proposal, stated this succinctly and clearly : "in the final analysis we should ask ourselves only one question - 'which package will sell the most programs?'"5 Sticking with a traditional formula was a key element of the Prize Home's success. The Vancouver Exhibition Association was founded in 1907 by a group of middle-class businessmen to "embrace Fat Stock, horses, dogs, poultry, also Horticultural, Agricultural and industrial interests and also for the object of maintaining the City of Vancouver in that leading position she by rights should occupy."6 Early on, the Prize Home was recognized as a promotional vehicle for British Columbia products and manufacturers. From 1934, when Mr. Thomas advanced his own firm, the Vancouver Lumber Company, to build the Model Bungalow, to 2004, when Britco produced the Prize Home showcasing its own home-building capabilities, the Prize Home team has 4 been comprised of vested interests ranging from contractors to architects, organizations, and manufacturers. A further theme is the importance of the Prize Home as an attraction itself, bringing visitors to the fair. In order to draw fairgoers, the Prize Home would comply with the original mandate of showcasing a home "of the very highest and latest type" and also continue to transform itself with the times. As early as 1934, these two themes of traditional format and change were interconnected. At a Board of Directors meeting that year, it was noted that "The bungalow being erected by the Vancouver Lumber Company and which will be given away at the end of the Exhibition is a manufacturer's exhibit, but also a great attraction."7 The PNE understood the Model Bungalow's draw for ticket buyers and its interest to local industries and fairgoers alike. At the same time, the Prize Home committees have understood the need for change -of contractor, designer, organization and site. To this end, a commitment was made and kept to provide a different house each year, showcasing the latest in design and materials. The Prize Homes discussed in this thesis have been divided into chronological chapters based on a common premise. In most sections, there will be anomalous examples; these occurred for the most part as a reaction to something that had happened in the previous year - a financial failure, for example, or a design not to the taste of visitors. The first part of each chapter will set the scene of what was happening during the same years from an architectural, administrative and jurisdictional perspective for, to understand the Prize Homes, it is necessary to first comprehend what was going on in the world and, more particularly, in the region at the same time. It would be impossible to understand some of the architectural forms without being reminded, for 5 example, of the energy crisis of 1973, or to appreciate the site of the prize homes away from the Lower Mainland without identifying increasing local land values. These notes will provide a perspective for viewing the Prize Homes so that they become part of their era. Similarly, zoning bylaws illustrate some of the reasons behind the massing of houses; in many ways, they are the most prescriptive of style setters. Jurisdictions outside of Vancouver have often followed that city's lead, for example, in reducing massing, or accommodating the automobile. This analysis will reduce in scale from a brief architectural overview to a local review of residential building before examining the administrative history of the Prize Homes at the PNE. An examination of these houses will be followed by a more detailed analysis of one individual Prize Home, representative of the period. This home will be considered in terms of external and internal planning and materials. A cumulative analysis of the chosen examples will be integrated into this examination and a review of changes between periods will be listed in the final chapter. Each chapter will conclude with a review of the significance of the themes on each period. The focus of the second chapter is on the Model Bungalow of 1934, the only Prize Home before 1952. The 1930s were the years of the Great Depression and, along with the rest of the world, Vancouver's economy was seriously impacted. Imagine the excitement caused by this first Prize Home worth $3,000. In other parts of the world, modernism was the new architectural development and the beginnings of this movement were being experienced on this side of the Atlantic and even in Vancouver. Why would the bungalow's architect have chosen the California Craftsman style? There were no other Prize Homes until 1952 and the postwar houses in Chapter 3 cover the years 1952 to 1959. In addition to responding to the global housing shortage following the Second World War, architects in Vancouver were gaining worldwide recognition for their cedar and glass houses sympathetically adapted to their dramatic sites. Why then were the Prize Homes of this period mainly of a prefab construction, simple rectangles with little drama or formal style? Of course they were a serviceable 6 answer to an enormous concern, but Vancouver's leading architects were also involved with budget conscious design during this time. The modern style became popular at the PNE in the period discussed in the fourth chapter, comprising 1960 to 1975, with modern designs every year except for one traditional house, entered 'for a change'.8 Here were progressive and contemporary houses and, for thousands of fairgoers living in old housing stock with few modern conveniences, these homes provided a window into the modern, even future, world. One fairgoer, then a young girl, recently observed: "Every year, our family waited in line to visit the PNE Prize Home. We lived in a 1910 house at the time and, as a girl and teenager, I loved seeing the modern interiors and was transfixed with the idea of a better world."9 How ironic that the later Prize Homes have tried to replicate her 1910 house. During the same period and concurrent with the writer and activist, Jane Jacobs, questioning suburban development in 1969, events such as the implosion of the Pruitt-Ingoe apartments a few years later signified to many the death of modernism. As the energy crisis of 1973 threatened the lifestyle many were beginning to enjoy, the Prize Homes of this period presented a modern look to Vancouver's fairgoers. Chapter 5 encompasses the next decade of Prize Homes - 1976 to 1986. These ten years were bracketed by the 1976 development of the south shore of False Creek, an innovative development of mixed income housing types, and by Expo 86 along the same water's north and east sides. As the conflicting trends of High Tech, heritage conservation, and Post-Modernism swept the design world, a house termed the 'Vancouver Special' was emerging locally. Energy conservation became increasingly important and a West Coast style of cedar and glass was continuing its prominence at the PNE, culminating in Ron Thorn's oeuvre in 1981. Did the rest of the Prize Homes from this decade live up to their West Coast billing? The Prize Homes of the years 1987 - 1993 are included in the sixth chapter. They were influenced by an array of interested parties including home-builder associations 7 with their home plan designs, a factory-built house company, and the Architectural Institute of British Columbia. The resulting styles varied from 'California style' stucco to modular traditional. At the same time as New Urbanism, with its retreat to earlier times, was entering architecture's vocabulary, Vancouver's land was becoming increasingly expensive, suburbs were expanding, development was being influenced by immigration, and new wealth was redefining the concept of home. Who, among these interested players, was responsible for the single-family home in the Lower Mainland? The site of the Prize Home has followed a circuitous path, largely following patterns of growth in the Lower Mainland. The most recent period of Prize Homes, included in Chapter 7, dates from 1994 to the present and has emphasized this movement with locations outside of the Lower Mainland, mostly on the Sunshine Coast. The renewed opportunities of dramatic site have barely influenced the design of these homes, which has swung from 'neo' styles to West Coast casual. Why has a renewed interest in modernism as well as ecologically sensitive design not been reproduced among the revival styles at the PNE? In the preparation of this work, a variety of sources were consulted. The City of Vancouver Archives produced the minutes of all of the meetings of the VEA and PNE committees including those of particular interest to this subject: Board of Works, Board of Governors, Board of Directors, Executive Committee, Finance Committee, Programme Committee and Prize Home Committee. Some early Prize Home photographs were also located there. Additional archival material was made available by the PNE offices, especially for the more recent years of the Prize Home. Local background information was also located with the City of Vancouver's Planning Department. Libraries, at the University of British Columbia and the City of Vancouver, provided much of the background material used in setting the scene of each chapter. 8 Some of the most informative details were gained from interviews, particularly those with the staff at the PNE. Consultation with others included representatives from construction firms, factory-built housing companies, local organizations, architectural firms, jurisdictional authorities as well as Prize Home owners. The winners of each Prize Home and the state and location of Prize Homes today are beyond the scope of this study as is the future of the Prize Home and the PNE. Highlighting the relationship between the Prize Home and its background will answer the question of whether the aspirations of the original Model Bungalow to be 'of the very latest and highest type' have been achieved. This is the story of the PNE Prize Home and how the right blend of traditional format and annual change has combined to promote its continued success. CHAPTER 2 THE MODEL BUNGALOW : 1934 A l t h o u g h it is not k n o w n exactly f rom where M r . Thomas w o u l d have heard o f a ' M o d e l B u n g a l o w ' in 1934, there was throughout Nor th A m e r i c a considerable interest in the design o f a 'progressive house ' and, as a result, many model bungalows were being designed. Ea r ly in the century, for example , the St. L o u i s Expos i t ion displayed a M o d e l Street o f bungalows in 1904 and a M o d e l B u n g a l o w was shown at the Indiana State House for the 1913 Nat iona l Conserva t ion Congress. M a n y competi t ions for model homes and developments were also held. The highl ight of the Uni t ed States based 'Bet ter Homes i n A m e r i c a ' programme o f the 1920s was the Better Homes W e e k where a moderately priced mode l demonstration home was open to the publ ic . In 1926, there were more than two hundred mode l homes across Un i t ed States cost ing an average o f $3,500 and, by 1936, this number had risen to four thousand, a l l open for tour. C lose r to home, the Shingle Assoc i a t i on o f Br i t i sh C o l u m b i a raffled a $5,000 bungalow at their 1921 B u i l d i n g Show and the Western H o m e B u i l d i n g Expos i t i on offered a modern $4000 bungalow prize. These Craftsman bungalows provided an ideal platform for the display and promot ion o f local manufacturers and products. The proposal by M r . L . C . Thomas o f the V a n c o u v e r L u m b e r C o m p a n y to construct a model bungalow on the site o f the V a n c o u v e r E x h i b i t i o n , to sell tickets and to award the house to the w i n n i n g stub holder was presented to the B o a r d o f Directors at a meeting i n 1934. T h e minutes noted that " i t was also proposed to have a f i r m in the ci ty furnish the bungalow. The scheme presented so many angles that after consideration it was decided to refer the matter to the B o a r d o f W o r k s wi th the power to act ." 1 0 The administrat ion o f the association had their o w n grand ideals. John 10 Matheson, General Manager of the VEA, linked his group with the Better Homes movement and renamed the home the Ideal Bungalow. "Home-life has been and is the backbone of the greatness of the British Empire and this laudable enterprise of impressing this fact upon the Citizens of Canada deserves the support of everyone. 'Better Homes for Better People' applies to every true Canadian and in providing an Ideal Bungalow, bright and cheery in character, it is hoped that the Better Home movement will spread throughout this Dominion with lightning rapidity."11 He concluded by stating that the VEA "respectfully invites you to help this movement by purchasing one or more strips of tickets."12 In idealistic terms, this was the pinnacle of ticket buying incentives. '^lie'ideal^iBungalow that will bo given away together with a 50-ioot lot a t tho vmmzmjvmi E X H I B I T I O N BLugust 29lh to Sept. 5th, 31934 Figure 3 The Ideal Bungalow Promotional Brochure 1934 (BC Archives). The Board of Works decided to adopt the scheme and, at the end of the Exhibition, Mr. Thomas applauded the directors and management on the success of the bungalow; Mr. Walter Leek, the chair of the Board of Directors, reciprocated with his congratulations. The Model Bungalow was influenced by the events of the 1930s. Following the U.S. stock market crash of Black Friday, which occurred on October 25, 1929, the Great Depression had a devastating impact on Vancouver with loss of employment and 11 reduced construction activity; many industries in British Columbia failed and prices plunged. There was a sharply reduced building programme and 1933-1934 was, in fact, the lowest point for construction dollar value of building permits in Vancouver since the early years of the First World War, with less than $2,000,000 being issued, about a quarter of that for dwellings.13 Not only were there fewer dwellings, they were also smaller in size as a result of falling incomes and lower birth rates. Between 1928 and 1932, the percentage of trade union members in British Columbia who were unemployed rose from 5% to 24% and, by 1934, almost 75% of skilled trades people were without work. Real estate prices dropped by 40%. The Vancouver Exhibition, in fact, hired nearly seven hundred advance ticket agents to work on consignment, including ten 'pretty Bungalow Girls' dressed in majorette costumes, to sell tickets for the 'Model Bungalow'. The annual exhibition, however, provided a surprising contrast to the downturn of the general economy with estimated attendance figures generally rising during the 1930's from three hundred to four hundred thousand;14 this likely reflected the escapist appeal of the fair to those adversely affected by the Depression and paralleled the increase in movie theatre attendance during the same decade. Throughout much of the world, there was increased pressure to provide housing as the absence of construction and loss of housing stock during the First World War had resulted in a critical shortage of dwellings in the 1920's. There was an optimism after the war suggesting a better world for all. The Garden Cities of Great Britain, les cites-jardins (Garden Cities) of France, and the Neue Sachlichkeit (New Realism) of Germany all emphasized healthy and affordable homes with access to sun and ventilation, easy relationships to the outdoors, improvements to plumbing, functional floor plans, and ornament-free design. One of the most influential movements was the construction of the Weissenhof Colony in 1927 in Stuttgart, Germany under the direction of Mies van der Rohe; this exposition, international in scope because of its inclusion of architects from outside Germany, aimed to display these sound living conditions in its 'New Home' for people of limited incomes. The residences were of a 12 'modern' design and, with flat roofs, simplified forms and open plans, represented a departure from more traditional period styles. Their 'International Style' with its 'machine for living' - made famous by Le Corbusier in 1923 - was to have limited success, however, in North America. On the other side of the Atlantic, some garden apartments and high-rise apartment houses were built in the years between the wars. The multi-tasking Canadian and American family home of the nineteenth century was no longer the centre of education, entertainment, health care, food and clothing production, nor the residence for extended family and servants. The tall and narrow Victorian house, fancifully ornamented and shielded with porches and shutters, was replaced by the broad, low bungalow, stripped of applied decoration. For the most part, North America was enamored with the California Bungalow. It was first popularized by Gustav Stickley at the turn of the century; he was a furniture maker and self-described architect who published The Craftsman, a monthly magazine used to sell his furniture and home designs. Influenced by a visit to Great Britain, where he became acquainted with the work of William Morris, Stickley's designs emphasized simplicity, functionalism, and a strong relation to the outdoors. His homes also integrated characteristics from the Arts and Crafts movement such as respect for craftsmanship, truthful nature of materials, and integration of the arts. The Bungalow was further popularized by the Greene brothers, two California architects whose finely crafted houses and regional relevance celebrated the relaxed lifestyle of their state. The main characteristic of the bungalow was its single-family status; located on its own property, the house was usually one storey sometimes with a partial upper storey built into the eaves. Catalogues of patterns were popular in the 1910s and 1920s and the bungalow dominated the mass housing market of western United States and Canada, allowing the.middle class to take advantage of the good designs available. The historian, Peter Ward, affirmed that "the Craftsman or California bungalow, as it came to be known, was the quintessential twentieth-century American suburban 13 home." The 1920s proved, in fact, to be boom years for the construction of bungalows but also, in the United States in particular, the years of its decline. Figure 4 Spanish Revival House at 171 West 23rd, built in late 1930s,Vancouver, 2005. In the 1930s, buyers became more attracted to revival styles, especially English, French and Spanish as seen in Figure 4. In spite of their lack of functional planning and focus on exterior appearance, period designs gained dominance over bungalows for the house buying public in that decade. House and Garden, a popular American magazine since the nineteenth century, suggested that Modernism, although popular in Europe, was not being adopted by the general American population. In an exhibit of models of houses in New York designed by prominent local architects and visited by more than half a million visitors, a traditional home was chosen over more modern styles. In January, 1934, it was noted in the magazine that "Critics of American architecture are fond of saying, and frequently do, that European architects are several laps ahead of our domestic 14 designers in planning houses for today's kind of living. That the layman is less cordial to modernism than the designer is evinced by the fact that in the poll taken during the experiment, at which more than a half million visitors made known their selection, the choice fell upon the [traditionally styled] house...'16 This same predilection for traditionally styled houses was evident in the southwest corner of British Columbia in the 1930s but they were not the only type of dwellings being built. Some local architects were inspired by the International Style, and, although few in number, these houses were greatly admired by others in the field. With the opening of the Lions' Gate bridge in 1937-38, the British Pacific Properties subdivision was being developed across the Burrard Inlet from Vancouver. Here, and throughout the region, examples of modern domestic design included H. G. Barber's house of 1936 (Figure 5) and B.C. Binning's residence of 1939 (Figure 6). Figure 5 Barber House, 3846 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, 2005. Figure 6 B.C. Binnings House, 2968 Mathers, West Vancouver, 2005. During the 1930s, Vancouver's population rose from 250,000 to 275,000. It was largely a single-family house city with a few apartments appearing on the west side of the city along Kitsilano Beach, Granville Street and Oak Street as well as in the West End.'7 Single-family zoned areas in Vancouver were regulated by the RS-1 District Schedule, introduced in the 1930s. The basic building envelope permitted by the City of Vancouver was generous at that time and allowed a great variety of styles and sizes of homes to be built within it. The size of the vast majority of houses built during the 16 1930s, small by today's standards, was limited by economic factors and dwellings were built well within allowable maximums. Basements were required for storage of fuels such as coal and wood. 1. Prize Home History Although there is some speculation that the idea of Prize Homes was begun at the Vancouver Exhibition in the 1920s with houses built away from the fairgrounds' location, it is generally considered that the Model Bungalow of 1934, now located less than a block from the Exhibition, was the first Prize Home to be built at the park. Vancouver Lumber Company (VLC) was to construct the bungalow, which was to be ready for removal at the end of the Exhibition. They also assumed responsibility for the costs of transferring the house from the grounds to the lot, advertising, etc. The cost of these additional items was estimated at $1,500.00 above the original $3,000.00 price tag of the bungalow itself. In the event of a deficit, Vancouver Lumber Company would be responsible to pay; however, if there were a surplus, it was to be divided evenly between that company and the Vancouver Exhibition Association. Mr. Thomas, President of the VLC, was to be officially in charge of the exhibit and organization on behalf of the Association. With the parameters of the house now fixed, the VEA realized the benefits of the Prize Home and its purpose was established. In addition to its importance as a profit-making venture, there was recognition for the house's potential for promoting regional products and manufacturers. A third factor - the appeal of the Model Bungalow as an attraction to the Exhibition in and of itself - was also acknowledged. 2. Representative Example : 1934 Model Bungalow It is in this setting that the 1934 Model Bungalow, shown then and now in Figures 7 and 8, was built. This bungalow style must have appealed to the Depression-weary fairgoers. The architect of the house, Harold Cullerne, had a keen interest in providing low-cost housing and produced many standard plans and plan books while wonderin "is there any reason why every workingman in this country should not occupy a decent, comfortable, aesthetically-pleasing home instead of the dismal, gerry-built hovels in which so many of them are forced to live?" 1 8 Figure 7 The Model Bungalow at VEA, 1934. Figure 8 The Model Bungalow 2812 Dundas, Vancouver, 2004. 18 The Model Bungalow was undoubtedly an impressive house. The exterior of the home presented a characteristic California Bungalow style with a medium-pitch sloped, cross-gabled roof entirely containing the house; it had a forward-facing gable dormer toward the street and an additional small shed dormer to the rear. Its cedar shingles were treated with exterior oil shingle stain in bright red and fastened with galvanized nails; the roof was described in the publicity brochure as being "easily good for fifty years."19 The house was clad in cedar lapped siding and painted dark brown with cream trim. It provided a typical 'honest' expression of the structure, with structural elements becoming decorative elements, typical of Craftsmen houses; these included main floor joists 'extended' as decorative supports for window boxes under the front windows and extended roof rafters 'supporting' the generous overhang. Wood windows contained decorative leaded glass panes and clearly reflected the intended importance of the room behind with the largest windows into the living room and dinette and the smaller ones associated with bedrooms, bathroom and closet. The absence of a generous front porch with large tapered posts marking the transition from exterior to interior is notable; this may have been due to the unsophisticated moving techniques (this house was moved to its site by a team of horses). Access to the rear garden was through a modest porch. Both porches and steps were finished in slate grey porch paint. The house was moved onto a full, under-height basement with space for storage of coal. With a main floor square footage of nearly one thousand square feet and a partial, unfinished second floor, this dwelling would have made an exceptional prize, situated on its fifty-foot wide property. 19 The interior boasted a functional main floor plan with front entry hall entered through a heavy wooden door, replete with wrought iron hinges and door knocker. The living room was accessed through leaded-glass French doors and interconnected with the dinette. The dinette boasted a beamed ceiling and paneling of a rich brown colour. Floors of the living room, dinette and the entry were of 'eyecatching' quarter cut oak, however, other floors on the main floor were edge grain fir, all being protected by Inwood, a sealer advertised as lasting indefinitely. The kitchen's walls were paneled and covered by an acid-proof, spring-green enamel paint. Next to the kitchen, with plumbing economically concentrated in one area, the bathroom walls were similarly paneled and painted in an orchid colour surmounted by a chromium-plated strip. The bathroom had jade green vitreous china fixtures - "practically unbreakable"20 -including a six-foot-long cast iron tub, and featured one-inch coloured porcelain mosaic tiles. In addition, there were two bedrooms and a bath entered from a common 20 central hall along with linen, coat and bedroom closets, one with a ventilating window. The second floor, which could be finished when desired, would accommodate two additional bedrooms and a sewing room in the front dormer. Except for the kitchen, each room had windows on two sides to increase sunlight and fresh air ventilation. All walls were plastered. Typical of Craftsmen dwellings, it housed space-saving built-in bookcases and ironing board, and featured a full-length mirror concealing the way to the attic. All windows were fitted with Venetian blinds made from B.C. Cedar and finished in a light cream colour; this window covering was a new product in the marketplace. (Kirsch, for example, one of the leading providers of blinds did not start manufacturing the wood slats until 1935). In addition to a fireplace in the living room, the house was heated by the 'latest in coal furnaces.' Heat was supplied and regulated by a thermostat-controlled automatic coal-burning stoker. The accompanying brochure highlighted this feature: "It will be noticed that the air is deliciously cool and pure. Dirt and germs are eliminated by a special air-filtration system."21 Particular note was made of electric outlets, including "a special one in the mantelpiece for an electric clock."22 Furniture was provided by the Hudson's Bay Company, who advertised their furnishings as representative of "the utmost in smartness, utility, and economy."23 This Ideal Bungalow provided a straightforward plan with a clear delineation of public and private spaces. The living room was entered from the entry hallway through French doors and a wide passage to the dinette made it easily accessible as well. The kitchen, bedrooms, closets and bathroom were entered through a narrow hall and the upper floor, although entered through a door in the entry hall, was small and disguised by a full-length mirror. It is more difficult to discern the relation between the interior and exterior as Cullerne's rendering of the bungalow showed a low-lying building with four, broad steps to the main floor. With its perimeter landscaping and flower boxes overflowing with greenery, the house nestled into its garden. Photos of the Prize Home in 1934 showed the house devoid of any plant material and accessed by five steeper stairs; the house was indeed set on a low-ceilinged basement. Today, the house appears to be 21 elevated with very modest, front landscaping to avoid blocking sunlight into basement windows. There are now seven stairs to the front door. The rear of the house has been slightly remodeled and it can be imagined that the original intent of the Craftsman house set in garden has been neglected; the present owner, however, has installed hard landscaping with goldfish ponds and a swimming pool in the south-facing backyard and, in the summer, lives in the sunny yard "from morning to nightfall."24 The Model Bungalow may have been behind the times architecturally, from an international or even North American viewpoint, but it was an attractive new home being offered during the Depression years. It formed part of its architect's preoccupation with low-costing housing for the citizens of Vancouver. The bungalow style, with its familiar exterior, allowed for many modern features/Attributes characteristic of Craftsmen houses such as use of a functional, simple floor plan, natural, structural expression and attention to healthy air quality were seen throughout the 1934 Prize Home; materials used were local and long-lasting and appropriate for Vancouver's labour force. Flexible spaces were also provided with the upper attic floor and basement remaining to be finished as required. In this regard, the Model Bungalow can be seen as representative of its time from a social and economic point of view, although not in tune with the latest architectural trends. Even from a popular perspective, the bungalow style was no longer fashionable, with other revival styles being more commonly built around Vancouver. Its existence today, nonetheless, is proof of its enduring qualities; even now, the Model Bungalow would not look out of place in local neighbourhoods. The Model Bungalow was an excellent display for British Columbia's forest industry, being described in the fair's brochure as 'built of the best building materials throughout.' Its structural elements, cedar shingle roof and cedar lapped siding, decorative wood brackets, wood windows and doors and interior finishing materials all further publicized the province's wood products. Modest signs on the exterior of the house advertised the various donations of manufacturers and materials. 22 There are no details on the economic benefits of the 1934 Prize Home to the Vancouver Exhibition Association but as a vehicle to promote products from British Columbia and as an attraction in itself, the Model Bungalow was hailed as a success. 3. Review It is unclear why there were no other Prize Homes before the war. In 1935, the VEA received from Blowey and Richardson, Solicitors, a claim that certain work had not been finished on the house and lot. At the time of construction of the Model Bungalow, Mr. Thomas was also president of B.C. Amusements and, in that position, was asking for decreased rent, a four year rent rebate and that the Exhibition Association pay half of the cost of repainting his ride, the Giant Dipper; this created considerable friction with the Association who consistently declined to give assistance. In addition, the Association accrued considerable unaccounted for expense when, in January of 1935, the roof of the Forum - which itself had been built in the early 1930's by relief grants and relief labour - gave way during a heavy snowfall. As well, accounting scandals, rumoured in 1935 and later substantiated, added to the woes of the Association. In any case, during the 1930s, different prize programmes were also offered to fairgoers. In 1937, for example, prizes worth $5,030 consisted of a $2,000 world tour, a $1,315 car with radio, a $1,215 car (presumably without radio), a $250 vacation and five cash prizes of $50. Prizes of similar type and value were available other years but only in 1934 was a Prize Home, the Modei Bungalow, presented. These prize packages had great appeal during the Depression years. This period of economic uncertainty was immediately followed by World War II. The Exhibition of the early war years emphasized military efforts with soldier drills and displays of army equipment. Later, increased pressure by the military to use the Fairgrounds resulted in the cancellation of the Exhibition from 1942 to 1946. During the early 1940s, eight thousand Japanese-Canadians and Japanese moved through the fair grounds as part of 23 their internment and relocation to other centres in British Columbia, and Hastings Parks (the site of the Exhibition) was used by the Department of National Defence until the end of the war in 1945. Active planning had continued throughout these years, nonetheless, and in 1946 a new name was selected: the Pacific National Exhibition. The following year, the first post-war exhibition was opened with a parade attended by thousands of Vancouverites but the next Prize Home would not be offered until 1952. 24 CHAPTER 3 THE PREFABS : 1952-1959 F o l l o w i n g the s l o w d o w n of the Depress ion, the demands o f the Second W o r l d W a r on B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a industries such as lumber and pulp as w e l l as m i n i n g were enormous. In addi t ion, the requirement for businesses such as sh ipbui ld ing and muni t ions product ion continued after the war. N e w lumber m i l l s were constructed and thousands o f new workers were employed. T h e need for housing immedia te ly f o l l o w i n g the war was equal ly acute. T h e housing shortage affected returning veterans, reunited famil ies and recently married couples; it was also the beginning o f the baby boom. In Vancouve r , three storey walkups a long West 4 t h A v e n u e and Wes t B r o a d w a y were buil t by the Canada Mortgage and H o u s i n g Corpora t ion ( C M H C ) to house returning veterans; housing projects were also constructed at Renfrew Heights , L i t t l e M o u n t a i n and Fraserview. Veterans attending universi ty were housed i n former army and air force camps taken over f rom the mi l i t a ry to be used as student residences by the Univers i ty o f Br i t i sh C o l u m b i a . Some new apartment bui ld ings were also bui l t on the west side o f Vancouver . A l t h o u g h the value o f bu i ld ing permits remained low dur ing the war years - less than five m i l l i o n dol lars in 1943 - their assessment increased to over sixty m i l l i o n dollars by the late 1950s. V a n c o u v e r ' s populat ion also increased gradually f rom 250,000 in 1934 to over 400 ,000 in 1959 . 2 5 Attendance at the Pac i f i c Nat iona l E x h i b i t i o n also generally increased after the war and dur ing the 1950s. Vancouver i tes were enthusiastic to return to the fair when it reopened in 1947. T h e B o a r d o f Directors had decided to retain an exhib i t ion s imi lar 25 to that of the prewar years and the initial success enabled them to make substantial changes, confident of this support. New international attractions and a circus were staged and the British Empire and Commonwealth Games were held on the fairgrounds in August of 1954. Elvis Presley appeared in 1957 and one year later, the largest roller coaster in Canada was built at the PNE. Housing shortages after the war were not, of course, isolated to Vancouver. Response to this crisis varied around the world and resulted in the building of high-rise apartments (luxury, tenement, and point blocks), medium-rise buildings and townhouses. In Canada and the United States, however, the attraction of the single-family house continued to represent the ideal dwelling for most. The Depression had brought home construction to a near standstill and little was built during the war years. This was soon to change. On Long Island, New York, the Levitt brothers, after learning from their father how to build a house, learned to build houses faster with a system of preassembled sections and components that were placed on concrete slabs and assembly line style construction. The planned community of Levittown was opened in 1947 and soon the Levitts were completing houses - in either a ranch, Colonial or Cape Cod style - at a speed of one per sixteen minutes.26 In a promotional film, Alfred Levitt reiterated the ideals of Harold Cullerne, the Model Bungalow's architect in the 1930's: " We believe that every family in the United States is entitled to decent shelter." In private, he would add: "Any damn fool can build homes. What counts is how many can you sell for how little."27 On the other side of the country, Joseph Eichler was developing in a distinctive modernist ranch style in the San Francisco Bay area of California with flat or low pitched roofs and large expanses of glass blending indoor-outdoor living. His dream homes for Life magazine fuelled the American aspiration of single-family ownership. In Canada, residential design was being taken increasingly seriously. The Canadian Housing Design Council was formed in 1956 as a medium to improve house design and the Massey Medals, begun in the same year to reward architecture of distinction on a national scale, showed each part of the country what the others were designing. 26 For the most part, the pressure to build housing for Vancouver's burgeoning population was relieved with the single- family house. Many new subdivisions were built including Arbutus, Cambie, Oakridge, South Granville, Renfrew Heights and Fraserview. Illegal basement suites were also added to accommodate the increased numbers in search of housing. The RS-1 zoning schedule continued to provide generous accommodation for new homes in Vancouver. The rise in vehicular traffic, and the construction of major bridges at the end of the 1930's, resulted in increased developments on the North Shore, Richmond, Coquitlam and Surrey. Architecturally, it was the new Vancouver houses that won most of the first Massey medals in 1956. Describing these winners, Arthur Erickson enthused that these dwellings: caught the admiration of the country. Unfettered by the constraints of climate, the Vancouver school was able to show a freedom in planning and a bold use of materials that was impossible in eastern Canada. What the east didn't realize was that this empirical approach to building was almost a tradition in a place where ingenuity had always been required to fit houses to precipitous sites...But it was not simply the irregularity of site and amenability of climate that inspired the Vancouver school; it was rather the natural surroundings that evoked a poetic response from a few architects. For them, the house was more a device to enhance the magic of the site - to take advantage of the shifting moods of light and the great diversity of view, to lead one through an experience of nature as if the house were landscape itself. The building materials were not wood and . stone and glass, but dripping forests, shafts of sunlight, shimmering seas, moss-studded rocks, heavy fringes of trees, or pale distances. Dictated by its surroundings, the inner logic of the house was often subtle and hard to find. The architectural schema to the eastern viewer was hardly evident, and could seldom be understood without the site itself.28 27 Figure 10 D.H. Copps House by Ron Thorn, 4755 Belmont, Vancouver, 2005. Many of these modern houses of cedar post-and-beam and glass were designed for the architects themselves as other clients were rare. Some examples from the era included Fred Hollingsworth's own house built in 1948, the John Porter House of 1948-49, the D.H. Copps house of 1951 (Figure 10), and Ron Thorn's own North Vancouver house in 1955. Figure 11 Typical post-war bungalow at 3118 West 17,h, Vancouver, 2005. 28 These architectural gems were not, however , the norm in V a n c o u v e r dur ing the post war years. B y far the most c o m m o n house type dur ing and after the Second W o r l d W a r was an early type o f ranch style, shown in Figure 11. These houses lacked the architectural decoration o f the 1920s and 1930s and were usually stuccoed or sided in clapboard Often there were on ly f ive rooms ( l i v ing room/d in ing room, ki tchen, bathroom and two bedrooms) based on a concrete perimeter foundation or under-height basement. Figure 12 T y p i c a l spl i t - level houses, 2300 b lock M c M u l l e n , Vancouver , 2005. Spl i t - l eve l houses l ike those seen i n F igure 12, wi th the ma in l i v i n g area at mid- leve l between adjacent bedrooms and bathroom above a garage, also made their appearance in the late fifties. A typica l neighbourhood of the era was Fraserview, opened by the C M H C i n the early 1950s as a " w o r k i n g m a n ' s Shaughnessy He igh t s ; " 2 9 it consisted o f 1100 one and a half storey, side-gabled houses buil t on cu rv ing streets. Another , the Norgate neighbourhood in Nor th Vancouve r , buil t in the early 1950s, provided 29 prefabricated ranchers that were constructed on concrete slabs complete wi th under-f loor radiant heat. 1. P r ize H o m e His tory In 1948, Prefab L i m i t e d made a request to erect a house at the P N E , sell tickets for admiss ion and give the proceeds to chari ty; the winner was to have a lot i n the ci ty and the house was to be furnished by W o o d w a r d ' s " i n modern f a sh ion . " 3 0 T h i s house was buil t on the P N E grounds but not used as a Pr ize H o m e . Pan -Abode International in R i c h m o n d , B . C . had opened its doors i n 1948 using raw materials, especial ly western red cedar, for their bu i ld ing system of notched logs. E a c h l og is precut and coded and jo ined w i t h a double tongue-and-groove section to seal and m i n i m i z e cau lk ing . Its founding partners, D o c Steiner and A a g e Jensen, brought the idea over f rom Denmark v i a Saskatchewan. T h e y later separated when Jensen established Pan -Abode Inc. in the state o f Washing ton wi th a differently profi led log . P a n - A b o d e kits are s t i l l k n o w n for their complete home package and ease o f assembly. F i g u r e 13 P N E Pr ize H o m e , 1952 ( C V A ) . There is no evidence that any of these Pan-abode homes were, in fact, bui l t as prize homes until the 1952 house (Figure 13) wi th its brochure ca l l i ng out to " B u y your 30 P N E programs now " i n order to ' W i n this Pan-abode House , a l l prizes i n the house and this beaut i ful . . . ki tchen too ! ' " T h e happy winner o f this home wrote the f o l l o w i n g letter to the B o a r d o f Directors o f the P N E , after the home had been moved to a site across the street f rom the Pan-abode plant: A s winner o f the P N E B u n g a l o w , I should l i ke to take this opportunity o f thanking y o u for a wonderful pr ize. T h e house, now located at 7807 Fraser Street is complete w i th a l l the accessories as shown at the 1952 P N E . The different f i rms represented have put forth their best efforts; and I have a very modern and comfortable home. M a n y thanks for a grand p r i ze . 3 1 T h e P N E ' s A r t Chapman , w h o doubled as the coach o f V a n c o u v e r ' s Western H o c k e y League team and on ly organized the Pr ize H o m e in the off-season, approached several local companies each year l o o k i n g for the best deal for the P N E . H e had them compete for the honour of bu i ld ing the P r i ze H o m e . T h e P N E , i n fact, gave the w i n n i n g companies very little help. O f f i c i a l l y , according to the former president o f Pan-abode, the f i r m "combined wi th the P N E to have the display home . " 3 2 T h e design drawings at Pan-abode were done by G r a h a m D i x o n , a N e w Zealander, who had taken a drafting course in h igh school and eventually became President o f the company. Figure 14 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1953 ( C V A ) . 31 F i g u r e 15 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1954 ( C V A ) . N o t a l l Pr ize Homes were received i n such an agreeable manner. There was no apparent adverse publ ic i ty for the 1953 panel prefab home (Figure 14) (built o f four-foot panels and pilasters) wi th te levis ion set but, in the 1954 precut home (Figure 15) (where lumber was cut to size at a m i l l and shipped to the site), there were delays in the instal lat ion o f p l u m b i n g and other services as we l l as questions as to the actual value o f the house. T h e house had been advertised as having a value o f $15,000, more than its actual value, however since the winners were satisfied wi th what they were getting, the matter was dropped. 32 F i g u r e 16 P N E Prize H o m e 1955 at 1088, Ca lve rha l l , Nor th Vancouve r , 2003. A s a result, the E x h i b i t i o n Assoc ia t ion requested that the 1955 house (Figure 16) be completed by the beginning o f Augus t and "that the pan abode be in A - l shape f rom the t ime we open it for publ ic inspection. T h e house, o f course, is to be complete ly furn ished ." 3 3 T h i s house was moved to a corner lot in the Cap i l ano Highlands subdiv is ion i n Nor th V a n c o u v e r where it s t i l l stands. F i g u r e 17 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1956 ( C V A ) . 33 Again, in 1956, however, complaints were received concerning the relative completeness of the landscaping of the Prize Home (Figure 17) on its eventual site. Mr. Ying, who had bought the house from the winner, John Currie, refused to accept the $400 that the Executive Committee had offered in order to settle the affair; he proceeded to sue the PNE. There were also problems with the legality of advance sales of Prize Home tickets because of provincial government regulations. Figure 18 PNE Prize Home 1958 on Lougheed Highway, 2004. Figure 19 PNE Prize Home 1959 (CVA). 34 In 1958, the Executive Committee received a request from Mr. Hodges, the organizer of the Dream Home competition in Edmonton, to franchise Vancouver's Prize Home. This was refused and Figure 18 shows the 1958 Prize Home. In 1959, after committee discussions, the PNE stated that the house received additional publicity "in direct advertising through the firms and individuals connected in the construction and furnishing of the house and emphasized the over-all value which can be placed on the prizes when completed".34 A swimming pool was added to that year's Prize Home (Figure 19). The Prize Homes of this postwar period were remarkably similar. The early homes were simple, single storey rectangles - the beginnings of the Ranch style - not dissimilar in style to the Model Bungalow of 1934 with their simple, low-sloped roofs and use of wood products but less grand in style and scale and with none of the ornamentation associated with structure. A variety of local home building companies, including Pan-abode and Prefab Buildings, built the homes out of modular panels and pilasters, wood logs and precut components. They shared in style and scale with early settlers' log houses. In 1955, the introduction of a gable facing the street resulted in an L-shaped floor plan and slightly more complex elevation. 2. Representative Example : 1957 Prize Home The 1957 Prize Home, now located at 6517 Lougheed Highway and pictured in Figure 20, provides a typical example from this period. The house, which sat on a concrete pad on the PNE grounds, now sits on a full basement. Figure 20 P N E Prize Home 1957 at 6517 Lougheed Highway, 2003. A shallow-sloped roof with a low front facing gable over the main entrance (similar to the Model Bungalow) completed the horizontal style. Precut, air-dried Western red cedar logs were the building blocks of this low-lying Pan-abode house; their dimensions were 3" x 6" and, in order to save costs, no insulation was used (although stricter thermal controls by C M H C led to larger logs of 4" x 7" being used after 1960). The logs were probably originally finished with varnish or a clear stain; the main problem with this method of construction was the control of internal and external moisture. The front facing gable atop the protruding living room in plan was a refinement from the earlier Pan-abodes as was the additional module to the right of this gable, housing a dining area and family room (and allowing for the garage to be placed underneath in its present location). Windows were wood and the roof was asphalt shingles, supplied and installed by Sidney Roofing, one of the major advertisers in Western Liv ing magazine during this time period -occupying page one of the monthly. Similar to the 1934 'Model Bungalow', the exterior reflected the interior, with large (but still divided) windows in public spaces such as the living room, dining area and family room and smaller windows in kitchen and bath. Bedroom windows facing the street were placed high for privacy, especially considering the design was intended to sit on a concrete pad. Precut logs reflected the module 36 appearance with vertical divisions representing walls of rooms and spanning from eight to thirteen and a half feet. Figure 2 1 PNE Prize Home 1957 Main Floor Plan. At 1465 square feet, this was about one and a half times the size of a normal house for the time and, with dimensions of fifty-four by twenty-eight feet, would have required a sixty-six foot lot. Entering through the heavy cedar log door via a small, recessed porch, the house opened into an expansive entry with access through a large opening to the living room and through smaller passages to the kitchen and secondary hall. Minimum ceiling height stipulated by CMHC was 7'2" (later increased by four inches) There was no fireplace, which was unusual for a Pan-abode. Although no heat was provided at the PNE site, electric heat was installed through wiremold once the house was relocated. (Later, Pan-abode used a horizontal furnace if a crawl space was installed.) Plumbing was concentrated in one area of the house. 37 Figure 22 PNE Prize Home 1957 photo from living room to entry and front door, 2004. Although there are no photographs of the 1957 Prize Home interior, a visit to the existing house (Figure 22) showed a generous floor plan with vaulted ceilings; cozy cedar log interiors remain intact in most rooms. The original, maple kitchen cabinets are still in place. Flooring would have been wood with linoleum in kitchen, utility rooms and bathroom. Given the lack of basement in the original plan, storage was well provided for with a large front hall closet, a utility/storage room, reasonably-sized closets in the bedrooms and a large walk-in closet as part of the main bedroom. As in the 1934 house, windows were located on the side walls increasing both ventilation and light. Furniture was provided by Monarch, a local company, as it had been the previous year. 38 Figure 23 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1956 T y p i c a l bedroom furniture for boys ' r oom ( C V A ) . T h e 1957 Pan-abode provided a clear delineation o f private and publ ic spaces wi th the l i v i n g room immediate ly accessible f r o m the front entry and d in ing room through l i v i n g area. T h e ki tchen was at the back of the house ove r look ing the garden wi th the ut i l i ty room immedia te ly beside and accessible f rom it. A secondary ha l lway led to the bedrooms and bathroom. T h e on ly room seemingly out o f order was the fami ly r o o m direct ly beside the l i v i n g room and accessible only through the d in ing room. A conversation wi th the home 's designer, G r a h a m D i x o n , suggested that the f ami ly r o o m , a long wi th expanded eating area, were new 'special t ies ' that the P N E wanted to include in the Pr ize H o m e ; the locat ion o f this new room suggests that it was not part o f the or iginal plan. Because o f its close relationship to grade at the P N E site, the 1957 Pan-abode w o u l d have provided an excellent connect ion between the exterior and interior o f the house. The front and ki tchen doors entered direct ly onto the garden and large w indows in the ma in l i v i n g areas emphasized this connect ion. A t its present site, the house was placed 39 on a full height, fully usable basement and garage with no landscaping and it is difficult to imagine this close link. The neighbouring house, however - the 1958 Prize Home - clearly demonstrates this strong relation to the outdoors. According to the retired president of Pan-abode, the PNE was very good for Pan-abode's business as it "got the word out...and helped us expand our business quite quickly."35 Pan-abode was looking towards the recreational or second home market but the exposure at the fair increased sales for primary homes as well as for bunkhouses and new town sites. 3. Review As a reflection of the setting, it must first be remembered that the biggest housing concern of the post-war years was the number of units required for the shortage crisis. To answer this demand, the early houses had to be economical - small in size and simple in form - and speedily built. The various forms of prefabrication available facilitated this construction boom. The later PNE homes were only slightly larger and more complex in style. Home building, in general, had been almost shut down by the Depression and, after the war years, people were concerned with getting as much living space as possible for their limited amount of money. In this sense, the Prize Home can be seen as reflecting one of the basic needs of a society - a place to live. This was a modest home, advertised only by a sign on its roof stating simply: "This is the PNE Prize Home." It was as if there was concern that this modest home would be overlooked. Nonetheless, this was a period of considerable innovation and excitement in domestic architecture in Vancouver and it appears that the PNE Prize Home did not develop to the same degree as other domestic architecture throughout the 1950's. Without the space constraints of European cities and with ample natural resources on its doorstep, Vancouver did not need, admittedly, to turn to the more dense housing forms of Europe or larger North American cities. The Prize Home, however, did not reflect the 40 modern aesthetic of the day for which the West Coast was famous; these modernist houses were of post and beam construction with flat roofs and large expanses of glass. Nor did it reflect the building fury going on in suburban developments such as Levittown. In contrast, the PNE Prize Homes were located individually around Vancouver and its close suburbs. In its modesty, however, the Prize Home did reflect its times. It was a modern, rather than Arts and Crafts, bungalow; its exterior presented its interior planning in a plain, direct manner with no ornamentation. The reflection of plan in design may have given comfort to residents who came of age during the war. From a materials point of view, the Pan-abode used wood throughout, the building material of choice in British Columbia, but did not reflect the building materials being developed at the time including drywall (by the late 1950s, builders had generally stopped using plaster) and aluminum (products such as windows from wartime aluminum factories.) In the end, the post war Prize Homes were straight-forward, practical responses to the urgent need for housing following the war, built of readily available wood and speedily put together. Their construction and layout was simple. The appeal of pre-fabricated homes would be short lived, however, except in more remote areas where they continue to be popular. This home previews some of the future prefabricated Prize Homes such as the Britco homes of more recent years. In the tradition of promotional boosterism, the PNE provided an excellent showcase for this made in BC product. After the war, there were many prefabricated home builders in the Lower Mainland and it might have been this number that resulted in the Prize Homes of the 1950s. In addition, the use of the house as a billboard for the many products and manufacturers employed almost eclipsed the house in some years. Although there are no figures on the number of fairgoers who visited the Prize Homes during this period, the increasing numbers of visitors to the fair as well as the 41 gradually increasing number of tickets sold indicate that the houses continued to be popular attractions. In spite of a generally positive reception, however, the 1959 Prize Home experience problems such as the cost of the swimming pool, increased expenses of programme printing, lot and house moving and inclement weather. These led the Pacific National Exhibition to explore new directions in the Prize Homes of the 1960s. CHAPTER 4 THE MODERNS : 1960-1975 T h e 1960s and early 1970s were a period of unrest resulting in much societal change. V a n c o u v e r became the hippie capital o f the country wi th Four th A v e n u e in K i t s i l a n o hosting large numbers o f young people, s imi la r to the Ha igh t -Ashbury district of San Francisco. These were also the early days o f Greenpeace - now an international activist organizat ion and the G e o r g i a Straight - V a n c o u v e r ' s alternative newspaper. Br i t i sh C o l u m b i a saw a decl ine in number o f and product ion f rom sawmi l l s but this was more than offset by an increase in pulp and paper m i l l s , m i n i n g activit ies, o i l and natural gas exports and f i sh ing . B u i l d i n g o f the province ' s hydroelectr ic dams on the Peace and C o l u m b i a R i v e r s resulted i n less expensive power. Attendance at the P N E cont inued to increase, hi t t ing the mi l l ion-person milestone in 1963; by 1975, there were more than one and a quarter m i l l i o n fairgoers in attendance. T h e decade 1962-1972 was one o f considerable change at the P N E wi th more prominent entertainment events (the Beatles played at E m p i r e Stadium in 1964), year-round activities and considerable alterations on site inc lud ing the new Pac i f ic C o l i s e u m in 1968. The E x h i b i t i o n was deve lop ing and changing wi th the times and, i n 1973, the province took over the operation o f the fair. In most parts of the w o r l d , urban settlers l i v e d in some fo rm o f mul t i f ami ly housing. In Nor th A m e r i c a , however, al though many apartment bui ld ings were st i l l being built and some narrow-front townhouse complexes were bui l t i n Ca l i fo rn i a in the 1960s, most people continued to l ive i n s ingle- fami ly dwel l ings as i n the earlier post-war years. 43 Jane Jacobs wrote The Rise and Fall of the Great American City in 1961 challenging modern planning principles and championing diverse neighbourhoods but people continued to flock to the outskirts of the city. Toward the end of the sixties, some architects became critical of the International Style with the publication of Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (1966) and Learning from Las Vegas (1972) by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown and Meaning in Architecture (1969) co-edited by Charles Jencks and George Baird; they emphasized the importance of history and popular culture in building. The implosion of the recently built Pruitt-Ingoe in 1972, a public housing development in St. Louis, Missouri, considered uninhabitable, was regarded by Charles Jencks to be the death of modern architecture. Two trends dominated residential construction in Canada during the 1960's and early 1970's: urban apartments and suburban houses. Because of support from the federal government, including CMHC, collaboration with financial institutions and new technology including climbing cranes and precast concrete assembly parts, high-rise construction was extensive in major urban centres. The single-family house was becoming larger - about twelve hundred square feet - and was often clad in prefinished aluminum siding and masonite, although the West Coast favoured stucco. Aluminum was also used in new double-glazed windows obliterating the need for the annual fall installation of storm windows. The picture window became widespread in new houses during this time. Perhaps the last truly North American building type - the split-level - also became popular. Colour theorists, including Max Luescher, who was introduced to North America in 1969, espoused 'homey' colours and avocado was the colour of choice, especially noted in appliances. The end of this period of Prize Homes (1960-1975) was marked by the energy crisis of 1973 when the Organizing of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cut their oil production in half, resulting in a tripling of oil prices from three to more than ten 44 dollars a barrel. The authors of a study of contemporary Canadian architecture noted that by the time the oil crisis struck in 1973, concern for the environment had been growing in Canada as elsewhere...[but] the oil crisis marked a real turning point. Although in Canada the crisis was at first more a matter of anxious anticipation than of real scarcity, it sparked a genuine change in attitudes towards both natural and built environment. In the course of the post-1973 decline in the western world's economic health, notions of unlimited growth and technological progress...were called into question...There was suddenly a whole society faced with the threat to its prosperous way of life.36 In the Lower Mainland, the years between 1960 and 1975 continued to be very active in residential construction. After zoning changes of the late 1950's that allowed increased density, 220 high-rises were built in the West End during the 1960s with a resultant 17,000 new suites.37 In response to early urban renewal projects in Strathcona, such as McLean Park in 1962 and nearby Raymur Housing Project of 1966-67, citizens groups' opposition to the City of Vancouver's further urban renewal projects and plans to build a freeway through Chinatown were successful and City Council's resolution of 1967 was reversed. This was followed by the Strathcona Rehabilitation Project where grants and loans were made available in 1971 to repair older buildings. Also in Vancouver, the Fairview Slopes were rezoned allowing for new housing types and residential development begun in False Creek. The first major co-operative housing project in British Columbia, De Cosmos Village, was developed in 1972, and in the same year subsidized rental units were built in Champlain Heights. This project was designed with a flat roof in the modern (and cost-effective) aesthetic but, after discussion with their consultant, Christopher Alexander, who insisted that 'the roof is home', the architects added sloped roofs over the entrances. For the most part, the high cost of land and improved transportation routes, such as the new Second Narrows Bridge and the Port Mann Bridge, and completion of the Trans-Canada highway through Burnaby, resulted in new residential construction in the 45 suburbs, especially in inexpensive land at the outer edge of the city in Richmond, Delta, and Surrey. The value of building permits rose in Vancouver from thirty-five million dollars in 1960 to more than two hundred million in 1975 but population rose only from 405,000 to about 410,000 during the same period owing to a decline in birth rate and increased numbers moving to the suburbs. A lack of rental housing and a mortgage rate drop in 1971 led to skyrocketing housing costs in 1973 when prices rose by twenty-four per cent. Housing costs had risen more than six times as fast as the average worker's wages from 1963-1973..38 In 1975, Vancouver became the most expensive residential real estate market in Canada.39 During the 1960s, land in Vancouver sold for less than it had in 1912 but, in the early 1970s, a real estate boom doubled property values in just a few years. The exception to a continued increase in building activity was 1974, which followed falling real estate prices from the previous year. A survey of building permits shows that, in 1974 and 1975, there was a dramatic drop in housing construction in Greater Vancouver. Prices were too high and it was felt that until the inventory decreased, housing starts would 40 not increase. Beginning in the 1970s, changes were occurring within Vancouver that resulted in new pressures on the City of Vancouver's Planning Department to further regulate the design of new houses. Many of these new residences were built to the maximum allowable size with minimal landscaping and exterior detailing compared to earlier, smaller revival-styled houses. In 1974, the allowable floor space ratio was increased; it now included the basement area which had previously been used primarily for storage but which was emerging as space for living and for illegal suites. 46 Figure 24 Vancouver Specials, 390 East 17th, Vancouver, 2005. The result was the birth of the Vancouver Specials, examples of which are seen in Figure 24. Along with an increase in massing, their similar facades and nearly flat roofs were a stark contrast to existing houses. However, nothing would change within the zoning regulations until the 1980s. Many architects at this time designed sympathetically with the land and used natural materials; this organic approach had been influenced by the Bay Region Style and resulted in the integration of the house and site. In 1965, Arthur Erickson designed the Gordon and Marion Smith house in West Vancouver and declared: "I wanted the Smith house to relate to the site in the same way that I had found it revealed to me when I first walked onto it." 4 1 He spoke of the "budding local school which worked out a post-and-beam vernacular suiting the climate and the local skills...Out of the rough and tumble of the local building tradition, an authentic style developed with a simplicity of form and honesty of expression."42 The Hassell House in West 47 Vancouver in 1966 and the Hemsworth Residence in North Vancouver in 1969 are examples of what was being built by the leading architects of the day. This style, sometimes referred to as Northwest Regional, was characterized by a clear sense of proportion, composition and scale and an integration of the indoors with the outdoors, including retention of native vegetation, wide use of cedar (often diagonal), large expanses of glass including skylights, simple shed roofs, and numerous decks.43 Most houses in this time period however did not integrate so beautifully with the site; of course, few properties in Vancouver rivaled the natural beauty of the north shore locations, and houses, for the most part, were simple ranchers or split-levels with the contractors' favoured cladding material combined with white stucco. Rancher describes a large variety of contemporary single storey houses, usually with basements that used to be referred to as bungalows. "Characteristics usually included large picture windows, sliding glass doors to exterior patios, low-sloped roofs, a variety of materials on the exterior and an attached carport or garage; various other styles (including Japanese, Tudor and Spanish) were often incorporated as ornament.".44 Split-level houses continued their popularity into the 1960s although the difficulty of moving this dwelling likely precluded its inclusion as a Prize Home. The previously mentioned Vancouver Special, a two-storey dwelling (no basement) with attached two-car carport or garage with deck above at rear was designed to house two (or more) families, in a single-family zone. "Characteristics of this house included main living spaces on the upper floor, low pitched gable roof facing street, stock doors and windows and a variety of exterior finish materials." 4 5 The popular combination of their low price with maximum square footage and maximum site coverage resulted in construction of an estimated ten percent of Vancouver's detached single-family housing stock in the 1970s.46 As a response to the energy crisis of the early 1970s, passive and active solar houses were appearing although in limited numbers. Distinct forms were created by extensive 48 use of glass and solar panels facing south and using the sun as an energy source.47 Another response was retrofitting where existing houses were made more efficient by replacing single paned windows with double paned glass units and adding insulation to walls and roofs. 1. Prize Home History The rancher, split-level and Vancouver Special can be considered the last original domestic styles in the Lower Mainland; a series of revival styles has followed. The 1960s saw a new direction in Prize Homes at the PNE. Although the Pan-abodes of the 1950s had been successful prizes and it was decided to continue with the house as the main prize package, there was also interest in avoiding some of the financial problems of 1959. Keith Beedie, a local contractor who became president of The Beedie Group which specializes in the design, construction, and management of industrial buildings in the Lower Mainland, had been involved in the PNE of the late 1940s. He built show fronts for Happyland, the first amusement park at the fair and, later, he ran an ice cream stand during the Exhibition. In his words: I constructed five PNE Prize Homes from 1960 through 1964 with each house being an experience in itself. In 1960 I submitted a house plan to Chatelaine Magazine and won the "Home of the Year Contest". The home had to be constructed in Greater Vancouver, with Chatelaine providing the furnishings and put on display for a minimum of two weeks. I contacted the PNE and 'sold' the idea of utilizing this home for the prize home. If I recall correctly, the PNE paid me $10,000 for the total package (my only cost was labour, everything else I had donated) and after the fair, I supervised the move onto the PNE's lot in Burnaby. In each of the five years, I moved the PNE home and had it set up, complete with landscaping, seven days after the PNE closed. A part of my agreement with the PNE was that I could utilize the home for the parade of homes that used to take place a week or two after the PNE was over. I will never forget the person who won the fourth house complaining after they moved in that one of the glass shades on a light fixture had a small crack in it and what was the PNE going to do about it! The fifth house was the first two-storey house built for the PNE prize home. Due to height restrictions in moving the house to the permanent 49 site, the whole top level had to be lifted off and moved separately. The house mover came on site with his equipment and told my superintendent, Charlie Metcalfe, that it couldn't be done. No one talked to Charlie that way! He told the mover to go and have a coffee and leave his equipment and crew with him. In half an hour, Charlie had installed the beams in pockets that had been incorporated in the design and was ready for the lift.48 Figure 25 Homes of Distinction Brochure (photo courtesy of Keith Beedie), 1964. As all materials for the house were donated - lumber from the lumberman's association, for example, Beedie received only five to ten thousand dollars to build each house. During the fair, he also manned the house, handed out advertising 50 T h e Assoc ia t ion itself was aware o f the importance o f change to the Pr ize Homes . T h e Cha i rman noted that "the question o f prizes should be brought up every year to ensure variat ion and maintain interest in the prize d raw" and, after a request by Beedie to have a mult i -year contract and a permanent slab buil t on the P N E grounds, decided "that we should not sign a three year contract wi th Beedie and that we should continue as in the past to obtain competi t ive bids for the prize h o m e . " 4 9 T h e Commit tee moved i n 1961 to have "the house as the ma in prize again this year . " 5 0 That year, the Programme Commi t t ee ' s specifications stipulated a 1260 square foot home wi th basement, but the most attractive show piece proposal received was a four bedroom design o f 1800 square feet wi th no basement. Since this cou ld have caused trouble wi th the other bidders, it was decided to ask a l l the or ig inal bidders to submit new bids on the basis o f an 1800 square foot, four-bedroom house, w i th no basement 51 with a two-week deadline from that date. The Board of Directors found that Beedie's design "appears to be of very attractive construction and should be very appealing to program purchasers."51 During the directors' visit to the prize home, 'The general impression was that it was one of the finest homes we have offered in connection with our program prizes up to this time."52 Figure 27 PNE Prize Home 1961 (photo courtesy of Keith Beedie), 1961. Figure 28 PNE Prize Home 1962 (photo courtesy of Keith Beedie), 1962. 52 In the meantime, the Programme Committee had received a letter suggesting that a number of mobile homes be offered instead of one prize home, but, since arrangements had already been made with Beedie, this offer was declined. At the same time, discussions with the Central Canada Exhibition Association in Ottawa about a prize of gold, instead of a home^  were beginning. Both Ottawa and Calgary had given cash prizes and Calgary stated that there was a greater net return with the prize money. "However, it was agreed that, as last year was such a successful one, we should continue with the ... grand prize of a fully furnished home for a further year, keeping in mind that new gimmicks, such as an entirely different looking house, for example, Colonial style"53 would be entertained. And in fact the 1963 house was a Colonial. When asked why he changed from the more modern designs of 1960-1962, Mr. Beedie stated simply that it was time for something new. There was considerable discussion about obtaining lots for the future location of the prize home, however, because of the principle of change it was decided that this item would come up for annual review and that multi-lots should not be purchased. There were also suggestions of a permanent location on the fairgrounds set up with proper landscaping so that the house might be seen to good advantage, clear of the concessions. The Programme Committee felt however that the location of the house did not affect the actual sales of the tickets. At the same time, there was concern that the problems of the 1962 bidding process not be repeated. "The Chairman stated that last year we made firm specifications for the house, yet the design preferred was an alternative one, submitted in addition to the design according to PNE's specifications, which made it necessary for PNE to ask the other companies to re-submit bids according to this alternative specification. It was stated that, this year, PNE should give some guidance but that this should be run more on a competition basis."54 Figure 29 PNE Prize Home 1963 at 7551 Chutter, Burnaby, (photo courtesy of Keith Beedie), 1963. Figure 30 PNE Prize Home 1963 at 7551 Chutter, Burnaby, 2003. 54 The Prize Home of 1963 (Figure 30) provided Beedie with yet another opportunity to showcase one of his homes. This time, the Programme Committee remarked that, out of four bids, "Beedie Construction has submitted, not only the low bid, but also the best designed home. Plans submitted by the other bidders were inspected but it was agreed that Beedie Construction was the only one who had actually taken time and thought to the designing of this home, the other submitting stock plans already on file."55 This house was a traditional two-storey Colonial house and "Discussion took place as to whether the PNE Prize Home should be only of an ordinary design, or should the PNE try to set new trends. It was felt, however, that...the prize home should be one that would suit the tastes of the average person. It was added that a two-storey home would stand out well in the new location on the Ex [PNE] grounds and, so far as publicity is concerned, would be a new gimmick."56 In 1964, six contractors, suggested by the Vancouver Metropolitan House Builders' Association, were contacted by the PNE. Of the two low bids - Beedie's and a second proposed by Dueck Homes Ltd., another local contractor - Dueck's plan was a prefab style house of about 1600 square feet and 'not up to specs'57 and, once again, Beedie's proposal was accepted. The Programme committee reiterated its commitment that 'the prizes remain the same as in the past few years'58; the following year, however, Dueck won the bid over Beedie ending the longest run of any contractor to date. Dueck's home, shown in Figure 31, was the 'latest in original design using high quality building materials in component manufacture.'59 For the first time, Westcoast Transmission - a Vancouver-based energy company - was involved in the programme supplying all major gas-fired appliances including patio heater, barbeque and outside gas light in addition to the regular household appliances. Dueck proposed, in 1966, a combined scheme with Chatelaine magazine who would provide valuable advertising in the form of five or six pages of promotion including floor plans and an artist's concept. This proposal was, however, rejected by the Programme Committee in order "that the basic format of 55 prizes remain the same as 1965."60 The winning design of 1966 was a bungalow (Figure 1966) with Roman style atrium - a central glass-roofed hall similar to the open central courtyard of an ancient Roman house. Figure 31 PNE Prize Home 1965 at 7782 Kerry wood, Burnaby, 2004. Figure 32 PNE Prize Home 1966 (CVA). Later that year, however, the Programme Committee began to investigate a new prize principle. To achieve this 'new look', they decided to review what other fairs were doing. For the last six years, a Gold Bar had been offered as a prize at the Calgary 56 Stampede and a similar prize had also been offered at Ottawa's fair. In any case, at the December meeting, it was discussed that "over the past years, some of the Canadian Fairs have favoured and have had considerable success with a Gold Brick worth $50,000. Due to the fact that next year is Canada's Centennial, something new and different like the Gold Brick was favoured."61 Subject to clarification of legalities, the Board of Directors reviewed and approved the proposal and Noranda Mines Limited agreed to provide the Gold Bar, paid for by the 1967 PNE. In addition, as in the past, fourteen automobile prizes were offered as prizes, all gold in colour. • 77^ Figure 33 Bar-o-Gold advertised in 1968 PNE Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). After so many years of rejecting new proposals and suggestions in favour of retaining the format of a prize home as the main programme reward, it is hard to be certain why the gold bar was selected. However, the combination of a new chairperson of the Programme Committee, Canada's Centennial, the ease of the new prize for the committee and the proven track record of success with the gold bar at other fairs, convinced the Programme Committee to pursue this new direction. A review of this committee following the fair concluded that, because it was new and different from past Prize Homes, they would continue with the $50,000 Bar o' Gold in 1968. Is it not ironic that the winner of the 1968 Prize stated that "I haven't yet decided on how to spend the money but it might be on a new home"?62 And, indeed, the money would have bought a fine home as the average price of homes in Vancouver in 1968 was only about $20,000. Things did not turn out quite that well, however, as her estranged husband claimed half of the prize. 57 In fact, ticket sales dropped in 1968, as fairgoers did not seem able to relate to the gold bar as a prize. In addition to the adverse publicity, this caused the Programme Committee to return to their format of a Prize Home as the main prize for the 1969 exhibition. International Sales and Advertising Ltd. offered the PNE a package to supply the Prize Home, pay vendors and handle all advertising but the Programme Committee refused. There was, though, considerable discussion on what the grand prize should be, or of what it should consist. "It was felt that the gold brick did not capture the public's imagination and a tangible object was needed. The gold was also much more expensive than the house, and although offering the winner more, did not in fact mean as much to the bulk of people as being able to walk through a fully furnished home."63 The Committee was concerned with how to present the house without lowering the prize money from the fifty thousand dollars of the previous year and discussed putting a car in the garage, or adding a boat on a trailer. It was decided, however, that this was not needed as market value on such a house would be much more than the actual cost to the PNE. At the same meeting, they therefore moved "That this Committee recommend approval, in principle, of the grand prize at the 1969 PNE being a furnished house, subject to cost of house and appurtenances not exceeding $35,000 in total cost to the PNE." One bid was received in 1969; Burger Construction's Prize Home, shown in Figure 34, provided a substantial increase in net profit. The Programme Committee noted that "it was the general feeling that the Prize Home contributed greatly to this success and appeared to be much more popular than the Gold Brick."64 This sentiment was reiterated the following year: "The last couple of years we have given away a Prize Home fully furnished as a grand prize and a car a day on the daily prize draw. To give away a $50,000 gold brick it would cost about $52,000 whereas the house has a greater value and costs about $40,000 to $44,000 to build. Also, this is visible publicity and is an attraction in itself."65 58 Figure 3 4 P N E Prize H o m e 1969 ( C V A ) . T h e f ixed upper cost l imi t a l l owed under the B C Prov inc i a l government lottery programme began to impact the P r i ze H o m e i n the early 1970s. Once again, a Pan-abode was displayed at the P N E although this t ime not as the Pr ize Home . Other, more futuristic model homes inc lud ing a geodesic dome were also exhibi ted but these were not Pr ize Homes either. A l t h o u g h the Pr ize H o m e s had been gradually increasing i n size, the 1972 house was less than three-quarters the size o f the previous one. "It was stated that the house is smaller this year due to r i s ing construction costs and next year addit ional funds w i l l be required i n order to retain the same quali ty o f house as i n previous years ." 6 6 T h e Programme Commit tee also wanted to take steps to ensure more control over the contractors in future years by increasing hold-back money or requir ing posting o f a performance bond before letting contracts for future homes and even discussed constructing the P r i ze H o m e using P N E staff. T h e W o r k s Department felt they had qual i f ied personnel on staff to carry out the w o r k and that, because o f advert is ing f rom the programme, f rom the media and f rom w o r d o f mouth, the P N E w o u l d be able to negotiate good prices for materials, even at no charge f rom some manufacturers and suppliers. 59 Even though each year seemed to bring considerable discourse on the Prize Home, the principle of the house as the main prize was maintained by the Programme Committee. "It was felt, after much discussion, that a home is an attraction as well as a stimulant towards program sales."67 The era of the gold bar was definitely over; there had been a ten per cent drop in ticket sales. The limits of the Provincial Lottery regulations however were restricting the size and quality of the Prize Home and the $50,000 limit had made each Prize Home between 1971-73 "just another house."68 The site restrictions were also problematic. 'We have restrictions on where we can put the homes. The neighbourhood has to be respectable, and the price has to be in our budget,' said Doug Stevens, manager of PNE prize program. The cheapest lot in Vancouver at the time cost forty thousand dollars but it was not in the right sort of place. He continued: You have to remember the houses are overbuilt, too, we can't afford to have someone come back and complain about cracks in a few years. Also, it's overbuilt so we can move it 10 or 15 miles after the exhibition. For example, the siding joints are all glued as well as being nailed. That sort of thing isn't usually done. Everyone does a little extra because of the publicity."69 Figure 35 PNE Prize Home 1970 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 60 Figure 38 PNE Prize Home 1973 at 3030 Greenwood, Burnaby, 2003. 61 House sites were moving farther away from Vancouver; in 1974, the site of the Prize Home was moved to Coquitlam, which provided the site for the next four years. Figure 39 PNE Prize Home 1974 at 7515 Greenwood Place, Burnaby, 2003. A survey taken by the PNE in 1974 showed that most people favored houses in the suburbs. This search for the single-family house was emphasized in the local newspapers: "Most families want to own their own house in the suburbs. Even if told that by renting they could save a lot of money, they still wanted to own their own home." 70"What most people do want, ideally, is their own little bungalow in the suburbs."71 With a new agreement with the Provincial Government in place (this time for $100,000), the size of the Prize Homes began to increase again and, in 1975, the two-thousand square foot Prize Home was won by a fourteen month old baby, Stephen Lee whose parents had bought a ticket in his name. His sister, Holly recounted: "Win a house! Win a car! Get your prize home tickets here!...And that's where it all started. It all began in 1975 on the last day of the Pacific National Exhibition (P.N.E.) at 11:00 p.m. "Stephen Lee is the winner of the new P.N.E. home." My brother who was 14 months old at the time won the prize home (a.k.a. the "dream home") at the Pacific National Exhibition. What a concept!... 62 Our family moved in on Christmas Eve of that year. The house was fully furnished with the latest styles and colours of the 70s. Furniture, linen and drapes decorated the bedrooms in brown, yellow and avocado tones. The kitchen and dining room were complete with plates, bowls and dried floral arrangements. The sunken living room had many decorative items including plants that were surrounded by neutral coloured walls. The cozy family room with a T.V. was furnished in dark brown furniture with various tones of brown, orange and yellow upholstery. I don't remember moving day maybe because we really did not have to move too much. The house had everything already. The first memory of the house was that we took many photos of the inside and outside because our relatives in Hong Kong and China were all curious about our new place. It was quite the change from a rental house with two bedrooms in East Vancouver compared to a new three bedroom house in a new suburb of Coquitlam. It's a unique looking house with a flat roof unlike other houses in the neighbourhood. The cedar siding is a caramel colour with dark brown trim and white stucco...The trees at our house represent the three children in the family. The Douglas fir is a symbol of my brother because his Chinese name has the word tree in it. The bamboo represents my sister because her Chinese name has the word bamboo in it. Finally, my English name is Holly and of course we planted a holly bush. In the backyard, we grew strawberries and planted a plum and Asian pear tree. The steep driveway leads to the carport. In the winter, it was the best place to be tobogganing! Many stories and memories can be told about living at the house. I have lived there for twenty years. I know every crack and scratch around and how it originated. Although it was my brother who won the house, we shared the joy and laughter of the home as we grew up in it. My parents continue to enjoy the home and are hoping it will be the beginning of a legacy for the Lee family.72 Figure 40 PNE Prize Home 1975 perspective (CVA). 63 T h e per iod 1960-1975 saw a wide variety o f styles in Pr ize Homes but, except for a C o l o n i a l distraction in 1963, they were part o f a modernist design aesthetic. Ea r ly post and beam construction gave way to traditional platform framing. Houses were mostly single storey wi th flat or low-s loped roofs; exteriors were cedar and glass. A lack o f resources i n the early 1970s gave rise to mediocre design but the 1975 Pr ize H o m e , pictured in Figure 40, ended the per iod wi th a sleek, horizontal West Coast style. 2. Representative E x a m p l e : 1964 Pr ize H o m e F i g u r e 41 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1964 at 7880 Kraft , Burnaby, 2003. T h e 1964 Pr ize H o m e was to be the last o f K e i t h Beedie ' s houses at the fair and it featured a new concept o f ' rooms wi thout ce i l ings ' where the interior spaces reflected the roofl ine o f the house. T h e exterior o f the home featured a l ow slope roof wi th ridge running f rom right to left interrupted by a dramatic two storey entry gable facing the street and cont inuing to the rear, w i th two and one half storey glass panels surrounding the front door. A l t h o u g h overs ized, this gable above the entry is s imi lar to those in the 1934 and 1957 houses. T h i s was not a classic ranch design but formed part o f the variat ion on ranchers characteristic o f the t ime. The roof o f the 1800 square foot house was shingled wi th thatch-pattern cedar shingles and its wal l s were clad wi th beveled s id ing. W i n d o w s were a l u m i n u m and a single carport (later turned into a garage) wi th storage shed was attached. T h e overal l d imensions o f 71.5 by 26 feet, inc lud ing the 64 street-facing carport, necessitated an oversized, suburban lot and the house was moved to a new community in Burnaby. 1964 Prize Home Figure 42 PNE Prize Home 1964 Main Floor Plan. The interior consisted of an open plan entry, L-shaped living room and dining room and enclosed kitchen facing the rear yard. The bright, expansive front entry with its double-height ceiling led, via a grand curved staircase with curved wrought iron railing, to an open mezzanine games room with storage and a fireplace tucked under the eaves of the gable dormer. Two bedrooms and bathroom and a large master bedroom with ensuite completed the plan. Plumbing was economically concentrated in one area of the house. Kitchen cabinets were made by Crestwood and countertops were of plastic laminate. Of note is the electric heating by Chromalox which promoted its advantages of cleanliness, speed of installation, safety, even heat and compact installation (no furnace, vents, piping, ducting). Their ad in the brochure stated "No Dirt! No Fumes! No Filters! No Servicing! No Fuel Deliveries!" Duke Energy - an American energy company - took over as a major sponsor of the Prize Home the following year. No side windows were present, which reduced natural ventilation and sunlight. Surprisingly, the walls were plastered not covered in drywall - the most common material of the day. However, as the acknowledgement for wall covering in the promotional brochure was from the B.C. Plastering Promotional Fund, perhaps this was an attempt by the plaster trade association to recapture a disappearing market. 65 This house was a blend of ideas, incorporating features of the modern house (open living and dining room and large windows) with traditional design elements (gable roof); it was a compromise intended to appeal to a variety of potential clients. In its brochure, "Homes of Distinction", the Beedie Construction Company attempted to attract all potential customers: "We have many plans on file, including post and beam, contemporary, conventional, split levels, and two stories; any one of which may suit your needs, or we will be happy to design the exact type of home to suit you and your family at no additional cost."73 The interior layout of the house was evident in the exterior design with large windows in the principal rooms and smaller windows in less important ones. Similar to the 1957 house, bedroom windows facing the street were placed high to achieve privacy. The plan of the house clearly distinguished between the public and private domains with an open entry, living room and dining room. Similar to the 1934 and 1957 Prize Homes, the kitchen was at the centre of circulation opening onto the dining area, main entry hallway and outdoors; bedrooms and bathrooms were entered from a narrow hallway. Again, as in the 1957 house, access to the family or games room was through the public area, this time the front entry and up the staircase, in order to take advantage of the dramatic two-storey space centered on the front door. Perhaps the newness of the family room concept led to the difficulty in knowing where to locate the room; not knowing whether it belonged in the public or private realm and wanting to obtain acoustic isolation, it was placed away from both. Since there was no basement in this house either, ample storage was provided with oversized front hall and bedroom closets as well as three additional hall closets. Extra storage was provided at the rear of the carport. All of Beedie's Prize Homes were erected on a slab on grade and this easy relation to the ground aided in the connection between the outdoor and indoor spaces. Situated on 66 an enormous corner lot, easy access to the yards is provided at the front and back doors; visual sightlines are through large windows in the public rooms. The 1964 Prize Home reflected the local situation in many ways. Located in the Willows subdivision in Burnaby, it was promoted as a family home with "new space for family living.. .space to relax.. .to entertain friends.. .for children to play in safety...space to live better."74The ranch style with no basement provided easy access to the outside. Materials were consistent with those used at the time, aluminum windows, cedar shingles and carpet, for example, although stucco was generally more widely used than wood and drywall was more prevalent than plaster. At eighteen hundred square feet, this home was about one and a half times the size of a typical house at the time. "It was the builder's special of the day," noted Robert Lemon, president of Heritage Vancouver. "They [ranchers] were considered to be modern and efficient but not intended to be 'modern' architecture. They had an L-shaped living dining area with no wall between them, but probably a separate kitchen. Three bedrooms and two bathrooms, that's your standard plan...The family room also came in the '50's," added (Don) Luxton. "You'd also have a carport, usually attached to the house...Ranch homes can be found all over the place...if a neighbourhood sprung up in the 50's or 60's, chances are it has ranchers."75 As the housing crisis lessened and the simple post war dwellings developed into more elaborate homes, the 1964 Prize Home reflected its time in a popular sense. It had little in common, however, with the contemporary houses being designed by Vancouver's top architects and was constructed almost twenty years after the suburban houses of Levittown. It was a basic rancher with extras that made it a popular Prize Home. Manufacturers and products continued to be well promoted but without the obvious signage of the 1950s. Discreet signs by the house identified the contractor and furniture supplier and other contributions were publicized by markers throughout the house. Contributions from sub-trades and suppliers were acknowledged in publicity 67 brochures. Contractors were given very little money from the PNE and this recognition was critical to the success of the Prize Homes. 3. Review Again, no statistics exist on the number of fairgoers who visited the Prize Home or on the number of tickets purchased; however, the decrease in profits when the Prize Home was replaced with a gold brick are an indication of its popularity as an attraction. The modernist style of this period with flat or low-sloped roofs, natural materials and large expanses of glass continued to delight fairgoers with dreams of winning the prize as well as with current options and ideas for their own homes. These houses presented fairgoers with a taste for a West Coast style reflective of a generally buoyant economy. CHAPTER 5 WEST COAST STYLE : 1976-1986 In spite o f a w o r l d industrial economy generally f lounder ing after 1973, Br i t i sh C o l u m b i a prospered through its o w n resources. There was a rise in coal exports to Japan, increased explorat ion and development of resources in the northeastern parts o f the province, an enormous rise in revenues f rom o i l and gas, increases in the forest industry (particularly pulp and paper mi l l s ) , and new molybdenum and copper mines. In 1981, however, the federal budget erased large sections o f the development industry. Wi thou t these tax incentives, new developers needed to max imize the marketabi l i ty and profit o f the bui ld ings . T h e recession o f that year wi th its 2 1 % interest rates took a heavy to l l on the province and was fo l l owed by a more w e l c o m i n g approach to foreign investment. A s a result, Br i t i sh C o l u m b i a ' s economy became less dependent on resource extraction. T h i s , and the 1984 agreement between Great Br i t a in and C h i n a that saw H o n g K o n g revert ing to C h i n a in 1997, led to an enormous increase in A s i a n investment. It was estimated, for example, that 9 0 % of downtown South - the area immedia te ly north and east o f the G r a n v i l l e Br idge - was owned by As ians at the end o f the 1970s. In Vancouve r , after a smal l d ip i n populat ion in 1976, the number of residents remained more or less steady at about 425,000. The value o f bu i ld ing permits osci l lated f rom about $230,000,000 in 1976 to $400,000,000 in 1986 wi th a b ig drop i n 1982 and a peak o f $700,000,000 i n 1984. 7 6 A f t e r d ropping gradually f rom a h igh o f 3.3 persons in 1961, the average household size remained fa i r ly stable f rom 1976 to present day at about 2.3 persons. 7 7 69 The general move to the suburbs continued, especially to Surrey, as a result of the lack of affordable land in Vancouver. This was due to both a shortage of sites and increased prices. 1976 was the year of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements -the Habitat Forum - on the Jericho Lands. Other significant developments of this decade included the opening in 1977of the Seabus, a ferry linking Vancouver with the North Shore communities, and of the Skytrain in 1985, a rapid transit train to the east and southeast suburbs of Vancouver. The largest mega-project in Greater Vancouver was the New Westminster Quay, a multi-use development on the Fraser River waterfront. Two opposing movements in international architecture of this period were the high-tech and heritage movements. The first featured architects such as Norman Foster and buildings like the Pompidou Centre in Paris and, the latter, organizations such as the National Trust in England and the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Main Street Program in the United States, seeking to preserve communities and buildings. Although High Tech was seen in some interiors, it did not prove to be an important residential trend. After the energy crisis, however, the heritage movement provided a reasonable alternative to new construction with the reuse of buildings in a variety of ways. Although Heritage Vancouver was not founded until 1991, other heritage groups were forming across the country; Sauvons Montreal, for example, began in 1976. In 1981, Heritage Canada initiated the Main Street Program challenging the popularity of the suburban mall. 70 Figure 43 Typical postmodern house, 4560 Belmont, Vancouver, 2005. A third movement - Post-Modernism - was marked by the construction of the Vanna Venturi house in Philadelphia by her son, Robert Venturi in 1964 as well as by the construction of Philip Johnson and John Burgee's American Telephone and Telegraph Building in New York City in 1978-82. In Canada, a 1975-76 exhibition of historical architecture at the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa titled "The Architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts" attracted considerable attention. A general dissatisfaction with modernism led to the Post-Modern movement whereby historical buildings were studied and a revived architectural vocabulary was realized. As opposed to the Modernists, who felt that they were building in an essentially new manner from their precursors, PoMo architects saw their work as part of a centuries long tradition of building. Figure 43 illustrates a typical Vancouver postmodern house. Published in 1981,Tom Wolfe's book From Bauhaus to our House, popularized the public's dissatisfaction with the modern style which was seen as "cool and aloof, increasingly sterile in design, and indifferent to both their users and their surrounding."78 The HSBC Building in downtown Vancouver, designed in 1984, is one local example of the Post-Modern movement. In an article on Vancouver, Arthur Erickson decried the 71 results of this movement in the city: "It may have been symptomatic of eighties materialism that it should be expressed in surface architecture but surely there have been enough false pediments, hanging columns and showy vaults for us to long for simple honesty. The moment is long past for us to re-discover the importance of place, the germane seeds of architecture and the sense of ourselves so necessary in the destabilized world of today."79 On the housing front, medium-rise apartment buildings and narrow townhouses were being constructed in Canada and the United States, reducing energy costs by up to forty-five per cent. Reduced construction and transportation costs as well as the ecological benefits of less urban sprawl appealed to some and, in 1984, the annual "New American House" honor - an annual, American-based award - was presented to a project of six narrow-front townhouses with workspaces within the home. In Canada, the CMHC built Le Bretton Flats in 1976 and Cathcart Mews (1978) and Springfield Mews (beginning 1980), all in Ottawa. Housing was also being included in new mixed-use mid-rise building such as Hazelton Lanes (1977) and the Oaklands (1982) in Toronto. In Vancouver, grand turn-of-the-century houses in the West End were continuing to be torn down to make way for high-rises but in the mid 1970's the Vancouver's Planning Department reconfigured the West End as a series of lower density neighbourhoods and streets were closed off to through traffic. The residential areas of Kitsilano, Marpole, Grandview and Mount Pleasant were developed with apartments and, in Yaletown, older house sites were being turned into commercial buildings. The former Shaughnessey and Quilchena golf courses became Van Dusen Gardens and the Arbutus Shopping Centre and were surrounded by upscale apartments. Condominiums were constructed in Fairview Slopes and Grandview in the early 1980's and, in Kerrisdale, the replacement of older three-storey rental walkups with high-priced concrete condominiums displaced seniors and led to a municipal review of rental versus condominium dwellings. Following the heritage trend, the revitalization of Granville Island began in 1977; it was a good example of the whole former industrial 72 area being more significant than any particular building. Pacific Heights Housing Co-operative, rebuilt in the West End from 1983-85, saved an existing streetscape of houses by adding a new medium rise infill apartment house behind to increase density from eight to ninety-one units. The 1934 Barber House was retained with the addition of an infill house in the rear yard. In addition, narrow townhouses were built at Willow Arbor in 1980. The decision made in 1970 to rezone land from industrial to residential and park land in False Creek provided a new concept for the south shore of False Creek and construction began in 1976. This reconstruction was mirrored ten years later with the opening, on the north and east sides of the same body of water, of Expo 86's 'Man in Motion,' celebrating Vancouver's centennial. Figure 44 New Vancouver Special, 4302 West 9th, Vancouver, 2005. On the single-family home front, an alternative was being sought for the ubiquitous Vancouver Special and, in 1985, the Vancouver League for Studies in Architecture and the Environment sponsored a competition for a house providing the same square 73 footage as the original Special. The winner's design featured traditional rooflines and materials and a semi-detached addition in the rear yard and is shown in Figure 44. An increased demand from neighbourhoods for municipal intervention against the Vancouver Special resulted, in 1986, in zoning changes in building massing and rear yards requirements in order to respect the neighbours' privacy and light. 1. Prize Home History Figure 45 PNE Prize Home 1976 at 1384, Haversley, Coquitlam, 2004. At the PNE, the 1976 Prize Home, shown in Figure 45, was a major break from the past. The Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada (HUDAC) along with BC Hydro and Power Authority approached the PNE with an energy house concept to demonstrate the potential of high thermal resistance, solar water heating, solar space heating and energy conservation appliances such as heat pumps and electronic ovens. With this stress on energy conservation, solar heat panels on the roof provided the primary heating source with a heat pump used as an auxiliary heating system and cooling system. In addition, there were triple glazed aluminum windows, insulated doors and fluorescent lighting throughout except for the dining room chandelier. Excess heat from solar panels was used to heat the above ground 74 s w i m m i n g pool in the backyard. B C H y d r o agreed to monitor the efficiency o f the solar heating system for three years, free of charge. E v e n the size o f the home was reduced f rom 2000 to 1600 square feet. T h e group had wanted to have the house completed by M a r c h in t ime for the Habitat Conference and Elec t r ica l Trade Show but this was not accomplished. Figure 46 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1977 Promot iona l Brochure ( P N E A r c h i v e s ) . T h e Pr ize Homes began to increase in size again and the 1977 home, shown in Figure 46 and featuring only double glazed w i n d o w s and a heatilator fireplace as energy efficient aspects, was designed by the students and staff o f the Br i t i sh C o l u m b i a Institute o f Techno logy ' s B u i l d i n g Techno logy Programme. Unsuccessful proposals that year inc luded a modular plan f rom Warnet t Kennedy , a local architect and ci ty counci lor , and an idea f rom B l o c k Brothers who wanted to become 'comple te ly i n v o l v e d ' wi th the P N E and to arrange transporting the Pr ize H o m e to 108 Ranch , where the lot w o u l d be sold to the P N E for hal f price. A t the same t ime, a new appl icat ion was made to the B C Government ' s Lotteries B ranch to increase the amount o f money available for the home as it had remained at an unworkable $100,000. 75 Figure 47 PNE Prize Home 1978 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). After two contemporary homes, the unanimous decision was made by staff to revert, in 1978 (Figure 47), to a more traditional design - a Colonial rancher - 'because of its warm, homey look".80 This decision provides a good example of the PNE, responding to criticism from the general public over unpopular designs, following with a more generally acceptable vision. 76 The next homes - 1979 and 1980 (Figures 49 and 50)- were larger and somewhat more contemporary but this period of Prize Homes was considered by staff to be a "dog's breakfast."81 At the time, the PNE staff was involved with the promotion of a new sports multiplex for the fairgrounds. Figure 50 PNE Prize Home 1981 (Vancouver Sun Archives) 1981. 77 F i g u r e 51 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1981 at 2324 129B A v e n u e , Whi t e R o c k , 2005. T h i s lack o f attention culminated in the debacle surrounding the 1981 ,4 ,000 square foot Pr ize H o m e , pictured i n Figures 51 and 52. Fo r the first time ever, there was a ground-breaking ceremony at noon on 18 June 1981 and the Pr ize H o m e Commit tee c rowed that "the ceremony is being held this year p r imar i ly to promote the or iginal house design by Ray (sic) Thorn , one o f Canada's foremost architects." 8 2 A l t h o u g h R o n Thorn had moved his architectural practice f rom Vancouve r to Toron to in 1963, the economic cl imate in Canada at the t ime had forced h i m to open an office in Ca lgary - the fastest g rowing ci ty in the country - in 1979 and reopen in V a n c o u v e r shortly after. Thorn was made an Off icer o f the Order o f Canada in 1981. T h i s lifted his spirits but the recession o f 1981 bankrupted many architectural offices in Canada and left Tho rn ' s office searching for clients. (Thorn 's western offices eventually closed in 1982.) It was dur ing this t ime that he accepted the Pr ize H o m e commiss ion . Thorn 78 had always been interested in residential design and insistent that houses remain an integral part of his office: "Ever since my office was established in Toronto it has maintained an involvement with houses, and we intend to continue to do so as long as the work is there. The effect of this work on the spirit and direction of an architectural office is magic. Because the ingredients of any architectural project are all there, and because it is a more direct subject to deal with - one client - smaller size - the process from start to completion is quicker. [Everyone] sees the seed planted and the flower blossom."83 The description of the Prize Home was certainly breathtaking: When you open the solid oak door you walk into a dramatic glass-roofed atrium, or interior garden, which soars upward from the courtyard entrance to the roof. From this entrance hall, short flights of stairs lead to the various living areas. The lower levels include additional bedrooms for other members of the family, a bathroom complete with whirlpool bath and a redwood hot tub on its own private deck, a family activity room with a fireplace, and workshop and utility areas. Upstairs is the main living area, including a dream kitchen equipped with all of the latest appliances, a luxurious living room with a view of the back garden and deck, and a spacious dining room. Up three steps is a private den or study, while the top level of the house is the master bedroom wind: a self-sufficient area with sitting room, ensuite bathroom, fireplace and a sundeck overlooking the back garden. Half-height interior walls allow a view of the atrium from the kitchen, living room and master bedroom.. .without diminishing the privacy of these rooms. On every level, the Prize Home is a model of energy efficiency. Insulation far exceeds the building code requirements and all windows are double-glazed. With central air conditioning, electric forced air heat, and three fireplaces, this home will be a year-round pleasure.84 The house was an expanded version of the Dodek house, designed by Thorn twenty years earlier.85 It was made in twelve sections, dismantled and loaded onto flatbed trucks to be reassembled; walls were bolted to floors, inner drywall sheets were slipped off and on and the central core came apart and folded into sections. Batex Industries and its owner, Tom Wilson, came from Ontario and wanted to enter the housing market in the Lower Mainland. Their bid was the least expensive of six -in part because they absorbed Thorn's design fee of eighteen thousand dollars. Some of the reasons it was chosen by the Prize Home committee in February were the style 79 of the house, its method of construction, cost advantages to the PNE and the use of union labour to build the house. Problems with the project, however, began almost immediately. Batex, in fact, did not settle their contract with the PNE until the middle of June not leaving them enough time to complete the work; in addition, they did not post a performance bond although neither had other contractors before them. Construction began soon after and progress seemed satisfactory with the supply and delivery of materials arranged to avoid the effects of the pending IWA strike. However, at the beginning of August, a meeting was held to review the Prize Home situation and to chart a course of action in 'sudden emergency' to make sure that the building was in place as completely as possible for the opening without encumbrances or liens so that the winner could take clear title of his prize. The Prize Home committee needed "to answer questions raised on the status of manpower needed to complete the Prize Home on time and to find means to overcome problems"86 including timing, costs and union labour. Although Wilson had agreed to use union labour, he underestimated the additional costs and this, added to a complex design and to interest rates approaching twenty-three per cent in 1981, made the house too expensive to build. In fact, costs rose to almost $450,000, not including the lot, this* despite restrictions from the Lotteries Branch that the total amount of the Prize Home package including house, lot and furnishings be no more than $250,000. A mud-slide in Coquitlam that year, where the home was to be moved, was the final straw. One additional negative factor might have been the contemporary design; the interior designer noted that the furnishings were not for everyone as they were to produce a contemporary and very dramatic feeling. In the middle of August, because of failure to meet the terms of his contract, the drywall contractor was terminated. Four days later, construction workers who had not been paid suggested shutting down the site. On the day before the opening of the PNE, there was a meeting with the contractor who had wanted to continue with its newspaper advertisements publicizing his involvement with the Prize Home. In a memo from W.G. Goddard, general manager of the PNE, to the Finance and Executive committees, it was stated: "Batex had no money, no credit, the furniture we had paid 80 Batex for was not the furniture now on order, the furniture now on order was not paid for, Batex cheques were bouncing, there was still money owing on lumber and other supplies, the Batex advertisement slated for the weekend papers had been put on hold, Batex had spent $90,000 on the house to date, and Batex was preparing an accounting of the money paid to them by the PNE."87 After adverse publicity on a local radio broadcast at the end of August, it was reported "that the GM and the President make a good faith offer to the winner of the house for $250,000 in place of the house and lot" and "that any wages owing any individual who worked on the site should be paid 100 cents on the dollar."88 The PNE opted to take over the Prize Home. Their major issues included resolutions of an approach to unpaid claimants, to the winner of the home, to dissemination of information to the media, to police investigation into cost overruns and to whom to sue - Batex and/or Wilson. In any case, for the first time, the winners of the Prize Home, Ray and Ruth Swift, took investment advice and opted for a quarter of a million dollars in lieu of the house. "A fabulous home but not for us" and 'It was the weirdest house"89 were some of the comments attributed to the winners. PNE staff at the time considered the house too modern and masculine for the average family to imagine themselves living in.9 0 For the PNE's part, "The Chairman (Erwin Swangard) stressed that no pressure had been put on the Swifts by the General Manager, W.G. Goddard and himself during their initial discussions."91 This led to a further set of complications. There was no point suing Batex or Wilson as they had no assets. Several alternatives were suggested in the month following the annual fair. The PNE could move the house to the Coquitlam lot and sell it, move the house to a more exclusive lot and sell it, sell the house on an 'as is where is' basis, or substantially alter the house. Since it was made in sections, the sections could be changed and the total appearance of the house could be altered inside and outside; it was Ron Thorn who advised reworking the house and using it for 1982. In any case, there were to be substantial losses incurred. A letter from Richard Bolus of ARCHO-THOM Architects and Planners to the PNE Management Committee discussed 81 possible alterations. He suggested that $40,000 would cover minor changes such as altering surface materials and finishes. With respect to a major alteration, however, he had the following to say: "In dealing with major alterations, we have found it extremely difficult to review the design with the ambition of making the house into a new, exciting project. The existing pavilion form is a very clear statement, and we are of the strong belief that upon this premise, the design was executed to its maximum potential. Subsequent alterations attempting to mask or display a new concept will serve only to produce an inferior result, confusing and diluting the strength of the original form. Because of these circumstances, we cannot suggest or recommend any alterations that will dramatically alter the house form or general image."92 In the end, he recommended promotional material to be based not on an altered house but on a new interior design only. An advertisement was placed in the newspapers to give the PNE the widest possible exposure to take the home to the buyer's own lot, sell the house 'as is' or to modify the house for the following year. As time went on, however, possible solutions became more difficult. A notice placed in the Vancouver Sun advertised : "You still have a chance to own the dream home. The price? Make them an offer." 9 3 The Executive Committee decided that an offer received for the Prize Home of $45,000 be rejected; there was great concern over the very low offers received for the shell. Moving the house to Coquitlam would incur additional costs as would a new, more exclusive lot. There was, however, no agreement among Prize Home Committee members as to the public reaction to reusing the 1982 Prize Home. After agonizing over their option of keeping the home for the next year's draw, they finally decided that the publicity would be too negative and decided to put the house back on the market by saying: "It appears more favorable at this time to sell the shell and keep the lot especially if we are intending to stay in the Prize Home business."94 In the end, debts were settled and the furniture was disposed of for $5,162.00. As for the house? "Due to some problems arising from the original construction, the PNE agreed to allow the purchaser to remove the home on a payment of $2,500.00. " 9 5 The shell has been substantially remodeled and moved to a lot in Ocean Park, a community in White Rock. Figure 52 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1982 Promot ional Brochure ( P N E Arch ives ) . Af t e r this f iasco, the P N E was taking no chances. T h e 1982Prize H o m e , shown in figures 52 and 53, was designed and buil t by Otto Dover te l , a fr iend o f E r w i n Swangard , general manager o f the P N E at the time. T h e committee noted that "this is an affordable house w h i c h w i l l prove popular to the majority. It is a little over 1900 sq 83 ft in finished area with an unfinished basement and garage." There seems to have been no discussion on alternatives and the main concern was that the costs remain within the financial constraints of the Lotteries Regulations. In fact, the only feature of note was a ceramic masonry stove installed for heating. The traditional design was lacking in novelty and the next year, a submission by the same contractor was dismissed in favour of "a more imaginative design."97 Figure 54 PNE Prize Home 1983 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). 84 gg Figure 55 P N E Prize Home 1983, 15955 19 t h, White Rock, 2004. Earl Pont, a Vancouver architect, won over three other submissions with his 1983 design, pictured in Figures 54 and 55; its individual sloped peaks suggested Vancouver's magnificent mountain skyline. Again, numerous problems arose. In addition to P N E infighting, where the chairperson of the Prize Home committee accused the Chairman of the P N E of overlooking the committee for reasons of haste and charged "that the Prize Home Committee and also the Board of Directors were just used as a rubber stamp," 9 8 there were budget concerns and complaints from the winner about the poor view and proximity to a trailer park. A s well, there were several problems during construction, leading the P N E management to suggest a project manager be hired to coordinate the architect, builder, and mover. "The time and problems encountered with the construction of the 1983 home were, in my opinion, tragic. We must do our utmost to award the entire program to a single project coordinator." 9 9 Additional concerns included a decline in attendance and sales of tickets since 1980. The Prize Home committee outlined many reasons for this decline: 85 the economy was poor; there were concerns w i th the design and locat ion o f the prize home; the sales contract staff were not professional; the t icket price had increased; advert is ing and market ing were unsatisfactory; and there was now increased compet i t ion f rom other lotteries inc lud ing the P r o v i n c i a l , the Express , and L o t o Canada. In spite o f the P N E ' s statement that "Compe t i t i on for the a lmighty dol lar is h igh in the lottery market" , 1 0 0 , the recommendat ion was made to continue the same format since, "Th i s year ' s prize H o m e is o f modern design and should renew enthusiasm of want ing to o w n . " 1 0 1 Figure 56 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1985 Promot ional Brochure ( P N E A r c h i v e s ) . Figure 57 P N E Prize H o m e 1985, 10523 Fraser G l e n , Surrey, 2004. 86 The following year, in spite of some interest in a proposal to build a village of four to five manufactured homes, "it was felt it would be a complete departure from our PNE ' 'dream home' concept" and "that the Committee recommends staying with the original 'dream home' concept."102 Dominion Construction, an industrial and commercial contractor wanting to enter the residential market, won over six other submissions with a complete package including the property, design, project manager, moving and construction. They located the house in Fraser Glen, a new subdivision in north Surrey. The PNE staff were pleased with the time saving involved: staff commented at a meeting of the Prize Home committee "on how much changing the PH bid to a 'package' arrangement had eased the time restraints of Management, allowing them more time to spend on other projects. The 'package' arrangement is proving to be a much more efficient mode of developing the Prize Home."103 Dominion was also happy as they viewed the PNE "as an excellent advertising vehicle."104 Later that year the Prize Home committee heard from Dominion: "Dominion Construction have stated the exposure they received was directly responsible for a number of sales in their Fraser Glen subdivision and they would be most interested in tendering for the package again." 1 0 5 As a result of the ease of this new format, the PNE continued successfully in 1985 (Figures 56 and 57) with the same arrangement: "the organization of this year's home had been the smoothest yet and Dominion Construction proven exceptional to work with."106 Ticket sales rose to over $1,000,000 for the first time. There was a variety of observations on the Prize Home. These ranged from 'overall comments from all sectors of our patrons were very favorable, many times heard referred to as 'the best house yet'"107 to the suggestion that consideration be given to something different in house design for the next year and that the Prize Home committee "will discuss possible directions to take in 1986 with those in the construction field to see what ideas they may have".108 Figure 58 PNE Prize Home 1986 at 600 Clearwater, Coquitlam, 2003. Although Dominion Construction and Earl Pont submitted proposals in 1986, it was Otto Dovertel - who had submitted two proposals - who won the commission, shown in Figure 58. This was Vancouver's Centennial Year and with Expo '86 being held in downtown Vancouver, there was apprehension over the popularity of the PNE with this competition. The heritage styled house was "selected to tie-in with the Pacific National Exhibition's salute to Vancouver's Centennial celebrations and the first 100 years of the City's history."109 As a sponsor of the home, B. C. Hydro was more effusive: Designer-builder Otto Dovertel chose its heritage style to harmonize with Vancouver's Centennial Celebration theme. Yet turn-of-the-century decor belies its up-to-the-minute efficiency and exacting specification standards. Because what really fused that mystical union between design and execution was the builder's choice of fuel: natural gas. Natural gas is used for heating, cooking, laundry, drying and fireplace heating. Outside there's a natural gas barbecue, hot tub, tiki lights, and a radiant natural gas patio heater...110 The decade of Prize Homes from 1976 to 1986 proved to be some of the most varied, from the modern, solar-powered design of 1976 to the traditional house of 1986. They offered a range of styles but, with the exception of the 1986 house, were an attempt at 88 a casual, loosely West Coast style with cedar shingles and siding, culminating in Thorn's 1981 design. Energy conservation emerged as an important feature. During this decade, the Prize Home Committee suffered through many difficult lessons including poor site and contractor selection but seemed to learn from their mistakes by trying to change with the times - and then reverting to conventional design when beyond their comfort level. Their resolve was firm to continue the Prize Home tradition. 2. Representative Example : 1984 Prize Home Although it is tempting to look at the Ron Thorn house in more detail, its size and budget did not reflect a general pattern of Prize Homes. It was too complicated and not in step with the budget and schedule concerns of the PNE. A more representative house was the 1984 house, a low-profile rancher now set on a suburban lot in Surrey. This provided a good example of a developer - in this case, Dominion Construction -using the Prize Home as a promotional tool to further their own purposes, in this case, almost thirty years after Alfred Levitt developed Levittown on Long Island. This Prize Home was an L-shaped bungalow with side gables and a front gable over the living room facing the street, not unlike the 1964 Prize Home's prow-like roof, or even the 1957 Pan-abode, although those gables as well as that of the 1957 house were over the entry. A second gable formed the street end of the double garage, which was placed at the end of a curving driveway perpendicular to the street. The rendering emphasized the importance of the car with the expansive blacktop and two-car garage door but the fact that the car did not directly enter from the street actually minimized its impact. As the showpiece of the new Fraser Glen Community, the siting of the Prize Home took advantage of views from the living and dining room - and driveway, multi-purpose room and garage - over a small lake at the entrance to the subdivision. The 89 greenhouse faced south. More private spaces, both interior and exterior, faced north including the 'sundeck'. This was the first Prize Home to take advantage of a particular site. Previous houses could have been located anywhere there was an appropriately sized lot. Figure 59 PNE Prize Home 1984 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). Figure 60 PNE Prize Home 1984, 10430 Fraser Glen, Surrey, 2004. 90 The slope of the roof was very shallow and the front door entered at ground, directly off the driveway; the rendering showed a wide, long house, low to the ground, set amongst trees that were no doubt bulldozed to construct the house. The front facing secondary gable echoed those of the previous Prize Homes although it did not indicate the entry but, rather, the living room. Beside Ron Thorn's house, this building seemed modest. The interior layout, however, was functional, with a semi-open plan and private areas entered off a separate corridor. Materials reflected the West Coast aesthetic with stained, pressure-treated lodge pole pine vertical siding and pressure treated yellow cedar shakes "complete with stainless steel nails;"111 double-glazed aluminum windows were installed although vinyl windows from Europe were emerging on the residential scene. "Westcoast platform frame wood construction"112 was employed. The architectural guidelines for the community stipulated the materials as well as the double garage. 91 Figure 61 PNE Prize Home 1984 Floor Plan. 92 The 'L'-shaped plan facilitated a central entrance and minimized circulation; its overall dimensions of 53 wide by 56 feet deep made it a suitable candidate for a large urban or suburban lot. Beyond the tiled exterior court, a solid wood door entered into a tiled hallway with living room accessed through an open arch. Plumbing was spread throughout the house; although uneconomical, it allowed planning freedom. A large room was located just inside the front door, accessed as well from the garage. "To offset the lack of basement, a large multi-purpose room has been provided, the use of which will vary with the age or lifestyle of the family. For the young family it will probably serve as a children's indoor play space and will later possible become a games room, teenage party or music room. Depending on the inclination of the occupants, this flexible floor area could provide space for hobbies, fitness equipment, wine making, an office or the many widely varying needs of the individual family."113 Similar to the 1957 and 1964 homes, this family room was located in its own zone. The garage was touted as having been expanded to provide space for a workshop and storage but with the glazed-in plant room and two cars inside, there would have been little additional space. With nowhere to put skis, garden furniture or Christmas decorations, storage would likely have been a prime tenant in the multi-purpose room unless, as often occurred, the cars were left exposed in the driveway. At least the door did not face the street, exposing the family's life to passersby. Along with a spa tub on the back deck, the greenhouse at the southeast corner of the garage was one of the Prize Home's features. Double-glazed aluminum windows were sized according to their relative importance with oversized glazing and clerestories facing the street from the living room, medium sized-windows in the dining room and kitchen/family area and smaller windows in bedrooms and bath. Side yard windows were only placed where there was no possibility of locating them in the front or back (in the main bedroom and multi-purpose room), decreasing opportunities for cross-ventilation. The importance of the enormous double car garage door was obvious. 93 No mention was made of heating although a small box in a closet might have been a heater. The energy crisis of the earlier decade had been forgotten. Neither was any note made of furnishings. The public/private delineation was fairly clear with bedrooms and bath accessed from a secondary hallway. As in the 1957 and 1964 houses, the multi-purpose or rumpus room was located directly accessible from the garage and front hall; it belonged in a netherworld of public and private and its ultimate occupancy seemed uncertain. In spite of its proximity to the ground, the interior/rear garden link was ineffective, necessitating a walk through a narrow utility hall to the back sundeck, spa and back yard; doors could have been located directly between the kitchen / eating area and the outdoors. However, this was the first time a cedar deck was provided in the rear yard and continuous tiling inside and outside the front door increased the feeling of interior / exterior continuity. Large windows provided easy visual contact from principal rooms. In terms of promotion, very little information has been retained on this house's presence at the PNE but the promotional brochures highlight Dominion Construction Company's experience in western Canada as well as its reputation of quality. Particular prominence is given to the Fraser Glen subdivision as a desirable neighbourhood, close to amenities such as transportation (including the soon to be built skytrain station at Guildford), shopping and schools. No mention was made of suppliers and manufacturers, however, this information might have been available on site. Ticket sales continued to rise during this period, in spite of the apparent lack of direction in terms of house style, attesting to the ongoing popularity of the Prize Home and its sustained importance to the PNE. 94 3. Review Two years later, Vancouver referred to itself as the 'city of the century' in its Expo '86 promotional advertising. The 1984 Prize Home hardly lived up to this image with its suburban rancher style and lack of current architectural imagery such as high tech, heritage conservation, or post-modernism. Although it did not reflect any of the latest trends, the 1984 Prize Home continued the tradition of ranchers so prevalent throughout post-war North America. It was representative of the interests of new development where design goals were eschewed in favour of maximum profit. Marketing dictated materials and low capital costs won out over durability and energy efficiency. In Vancouver, the Vancouver Special represented the same basic developer concerns, although marketing was not a particular issue. Everyone wanted to be part of the housing game - developers, factory-built house companies, contractors, architects and the government and the PNE began looking beyond their traditional contacts to include some of these new players in the late 1980s. CHAPTER 6 THE BATTLE OF THE BOOSTERS : 1987-1993 D u r i n g the period 1987-1993, the most important residential architectural movement was the beginning o f N e w Urban i sm. W h i l e homeowners were now able to l ive in isolat ion due to the prevalence o f computers, ce l l phones, and home offices, they responded posi t ively to the urban design approach o f this movement wh ich sought to replace modern life wi th that o f an earlier era, a time even before automobiles. Streets became narrower and designed for w a l k i n g and bicycles a long wi th cars. Front porches abounded, re inforcing interaction wi th neighbours wi th in these new communi t ies . Seaside, a long the F l o r i d a Panhandle, was the first o f these communi t ies , designed in the eighties, fo l lowed by W i n d s o r , F lo r ida , in 1989 and Celebra t ion , buil t adjacent to W a l t Disney W o r l d , Or lando , in 1994. T h i s more humane approach to architecture sought its inspirat ion f rom the past not f rom the more recent suburbs. A l o n g wi th such phrases as " E n j o y the l ife o f your t ime," "Lea rn to feel smal l again ," or " F u n fl ies when you ' re having t ime ," Seaside's promotional website states: "gradual ly the idea evo lved that the smal l town was the appropriate model to use i n th ink ing about l ay ing out streets and squares and locat ing the various elements o f the c o m m u n i t y . " 1 1 4 Because o f h igh costs, these communit ies were necessarily exclus ive and not a real copy of the v i l lage communi t ies that they were t ry ing to emulate wi th their m i x o f incomes and land use. T h e movement was important, however, in appreciat ing architecture as groups o f dwel l ings and as part o f towns thereby transcending the design o f ind iv idua l houses. In Canada, the development o f the G r o w H o m e - by W i t o l d R y b c z y n s k i and A v i Fr iedman two M c G i l l Archi tec ture professors - in Mont rea l responded to economic concerns; the first was buil t on the M c G i l l campus in 1990. T h i s design fine-tuned the 96 planning of a traditional single-family dwelling, providing a minimum amount of finished space for a functional home and leaving additional space to be completed as required or affordable. Within a year, Montreal developers had built 660 houses based on the Grow Home model. Thel993 American Institute of Architects' competition for affordable housing was won by a Canadian architect's 1,300 square foot design with a simple two-storey rectangular plan. 'Healthy housing' was an important mandate of CMHC at the time and emphasized occupant health, energy and resource efficiency, environmental responsibility and affordability. 'Hex-housing' - about to be launched by the same organization - encouraged adaptable, flexible and affordable design. Energy efficiency became less important after the mid 1980s. "With the passing years, the emphasis on energy conservation decreased. Most housing built in 1987 is little more climate-responsive than it was twenty years before."115 After Expo 86, the Canada Pavilion became a conference centre and cruise ship facility, the Preview Centre was reincarnated as Science World in 1989 and the BC Pavilion remained as a conference and reception centre. The remaining buildings were removed and the land on the north shore of False Creek was sold, in Canada's largest land deal, to Li-Kai Shing to be developed into residential and office towers and parkland. Similar to the south shore of False Creek, where industrial lands were reborn as residential communities, the northern banks of the Fraser River were developed in the late 1980s with projects such as Riverside and Fraser Lands. The last remaining large parcel of land in Vancouver was developed into Champlain Heights, a planned community of compact housing and parks as well as commercial and community facilities. The population continued to rise from about 435,000 in 1987 to 480,000 in 1993; this population was much more international, with considerable immigration from Asia. In 1989, 75% of immigrants to Vancouver came from Asia.1 1 6 The result of this immigration and Asian investment was that British Columbia did not suffer from the downturn in economy of the late 1980s as did the rest of the country. The value of 97 building permits during this period rose from about six hundred million in 1987 to over a billion in 1993. During this period, for the first time, Asia received the same dollar amount of goods from Vancouver ports as did the United States. After Expo, tourism became one of the province's biggest industries and Vancouver the world's fourth most popular cruise destination. Attendance at the PNE remained at just about the million person mark. In the late 1980s, Vancouver's bylaws were changed to encourage retention of the existing housing stock and to prevent further Vancouver Specials with their long footprint and lack of landscaping. The new homes followed strict massing and yard setbacks, resulting in more homogeneous siting throughout the city. These bylaws eased neighbourhood concerns where small lots were the norm but larger sites continued to provide opportunities for massive houses, again, out of scale with the vicinity. Figure 62 Monster house and neighbour, 2337 and 2339 West King Edward, Vancouver, 2005. The response to these regulations was the 'monster home', shown in Figure 62; small, older homes in Vancouver were torn down and replaced with large homes with 98 exaggerated double-height entries and a wide range of materials and detailing, maximizing density on the lots and, often, removing mature landscapes. These homes were criticized for their interruption of existing streetscapes and neighbourhoods. In the early 1990s, a group of residents feared the continuation of incompatible new development in their pre-1940s neighbourhood of well-landscaped and detailed houses; they independently hired consultants who drafted revised bylaws which, with assistance from the Planning Department, were adopted as the RS-5 zoning schedule in 1993. This discretionary design zone gave increased floor area and height incentives for compliance with design guidelines requiring neighbourhood compatability. Duplexes, barely discernible from single-family dwellings were also being encouraged by generous additional square footage. This desire for increased density was occurring as a result of soaring property prices as a result of real estate speculation at the time of Expo'86. On a smaller scale, some loft conversions were beginning in Yaletown and the co-housing movement, popular in Denmark, had its first Canadian project at Wind Song, conceived in 1993 to be built Langley. The Four Sisters Cooperative in the Downtown Eastside, built in 1987 mostly of wood with brick cladding new construction coupled with an existing warehouse, was a successful example of Vancouver's social housing. 1. Prize Home History This period (1987-1993) of Prize Homes illustrated the efforts of three groups to exert their influence over the design and construction of the single-family house in the Lower Mainland. The first - 1987-1989 and 1993 - was dominated by the Greater Vancouver Home Builders' Association and its members including home design companies. A house building company won the opportunity in 1990 to showcase its entry into the home building market and, in 1991-2, the Architectural Institute of British Columbia became involved, sponsoring a competition to design the Prize Home. 99 The Greater Vancouver Home Builders' Association (GVHBA) was involved in the building of four Prize Homes winning the bids with their competitive pricing; these were built at the same Fraser Glen subdivision of the 1984 and 1985 Prize Homes. The GVHBA is the local branch of the Canadian Home Builders' Association that serves and represents the professional home building industry network to consumers and governments across the country. The GVHBA involves itself in housing issues, such as affordable housing, municipal and regional planning policies, consumer and industry education and consumer protection as well as in achievement recognition with the annual Georgie awards, recognizing excellence in the residential construction industry. Three-quarters of the construction industry in the Lower Mainland is made up of contractors whose annual business is less than five million dollars; they are primarily involved in residential work. A design competition was held each year to select the design that would be built as the PNE Prize Home; it was won by house plan companies including Jennish, Select and Snider's. The tender included the total package of building, design, property location, project management, construction and moving. Construction and on-site installation was overseen by British Columbia Building Corporation. For the first time, tickets for this Prize Home were pre-sold in malls around the Lower Mainland. Figure 63 PNE Prize Home 1987 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). The principal concept of the 1987 Prize Home, pictured in Figure 63, was flexibility. The promotional brochure stated that "the flexible design of this 1987 [year!] square 100 foot house is in keeping with the PNE's philosophy to provide a stylish home that is comfortable and easy living for a large cross-section of people. Whether a newly married couple, a growing family or empty nesters, this airy, roomy, quality appointed bungalow will appeal."117 This desire to appeal to everyone may have gone too far, however, as this description from the local newspaper recounts: "The house style is a mix of currently popular trends. The design is influenced by several styles, rather than falling into just one category. We find that's what we are going to more and more in our designs. In the dining room, the ceiling is 11' high. It's almost a Tudor styling. In other areas, the house is decidedly contemporary."118 Hi N Figure 64 PNE Prize Home 1988 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). Figure 65 PNE Prize Home 1988, 10658 Glenwood, Surrey, 2004. Where the 1987 Prize Home was designed by Jennish, the 1988 design, pictured in figures 65 and 66, was by Select Home Designs with an array of features such as recessed corbelling at ceilings and plant ledges below transom windows. In 1989, the main concept was technology with heavy emphasis on GVHBA's Quality Plus Standards and on BC Hydro's Power Smart Campaign. Features included increased insulation, a heat exchange ventilation system, an efficient heating system and quality construction materials. An energy management system controlled the heating system; it was operational only when the house was occupied and also turned lights on and off, opened and closed drapes, controlled outside sprinklers, decreased the volume of the television and vacuum cleaner and activated fire and security alarms. By telephoning ahead, the homeowner could set the system in motion to turn on the heat, or start the hot tub or refrigerator. In the case of fire, the system 1 0 2 automatical ly created a path o f l ight to the garage or outside, un lock ing doors, and even alert ing the fire department. T H I I I I ) f N f P P f t l M O M ! Figure 66 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1993 Promot iona l Brochure ( P N E A r c h i v e s ) . A l t h o u g h vir tual ly identical in exterior appearance to the earlier G V H B A homes w h i c h also featured Power Smart heating, water fixtures and l ight ing , the 1993 Pr ize H o m e (Figure 66) - or ' V i s i o n s H o u s e ' as it was cal led - was made o f site-cast concrete and steel re inforcing throughout, f rom foundation to floors to wal l s to roof. T h i s method o f construction was fast-growing in other parts o f the wor ld , part icularly in the southwest Uni ted States, but was not prevalent i n Br i t i sh C o l u m b i a . Its advantages included being fireproof, insect proof, rot and rust proof, requir ing litt le maintenance, being energy efficient wi th addedinsulat ion, and having excellent soundproofing. Its environmental ly fr iendly qualities extended to concrete and steel being recyclable i f demolished. T h e G V H B A ' s promotional brochure enthused: " E v e r y year, the P . N . E . features a Pr ize H o m e and every year, that home has been exci t ing . T h i s year, the home is so unique, i t ' s been give a name - V i s i o n s House - and it incorporates many vis ions that in the next few years may indeed become reality as the home construction industry meets the many challenges o f today. . . V i s i o n s House looks to the casual eye l ike a usual, pleasant, suburban home. It 's anything but . " 1 1 9 103 These houses were all bungalows and traditional in style, with complex, oversized roofs covered in cedar shakes and muntin bars in the arched windows. They were inspired by the style of bungalows prevalent in Southern California at that time, traditional in architecture and interior design and modern in 'state of the art' quality, technology and energy savings. The Prize Home Committee continued to value the Prize Home as an attraction beyond its money making potential. The overwhelming popularity of the Prize Home remains as the main selling feature. Since many of the purchasers are 'holding off buying until they see the home, we find that our sellers receive much more information on fairgoer acceptance to the home. This appeal is illustrated by the increase in sales around the homes...Many fairgoers, especially golden-agers, still view the home as one of the major attractions of the fair."120 The committee recommended that "the Prize Home should remain the major prize. Fairgoers...view the home as one of the attractions and would resist any change from the established format."121 The members of the 1990 Prize Home Committee were Philip Owen (chair), George Wainborn, David Podmore, and Shell Bussey. In their mission statement, "it was agreed upon that the 1990 Prize Home should...offer the most up to date trends in home decor."122 This committee seemed to reopen the matters concerning the Prize Home. "Does a house located in the West side of Vancouver, or the Angus Flats area, have public appeal or intimidation; is the cost of moving the house prohibitive; if the house design was commissioned first, without location, would matching the neighbourhood building design codes be a problem?"123 The Committee arrived at the following program objectives: . To increase revenues by 10% for the 1990 season. . To implement an off-grounds selling program at other B.C. Fairs for the 1990 Fair season. . To obtain increased lottery limits (unlimited) from the Public Gaming Commission by January 30, 1990. . To review the marketability and increased revenue potential of increased prize value by January 30, 1990. . To review the type of program for constructing the Prize House by January 30, 1990. . To have a proposed package presented to the Prize Home committee by March 1, 1990. 104 . To develop a Prize Home that contains the latest innovations in design and outfitting by February 1, 1990. . To provide improved on-site display of Prize Vehicles for the 1990 Fair. . To improve the quality of the coupon sales for the 1990 Fair.124 Figure 67 PNE Prize Home 1990 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). H Figure 68 PNE Prize Home 1990, 14020 86th, Surrey, 2004. When two bids were received in early 1990, - from Otto Dovertel and GVHBA - and neither considered satisfactory, Podmore suggested an executive condominium worth $350,000 with a mockup on the fairgrounds. This was a better representation of what was actually being built in Vancouver but, after testing public reaction to the 105 condominium concept, the PNE decided to accept a proposal from Britco, shown in Figures 67 and 68, for a modular house over new bids from Dovertel and GVHBA. As Dominion Construction had done in 1984-5, Britco wanted to use the PNE to publicize its diversification into the residential market by demonstrating that modular construction could be attractive, versatile and efficient. When asked what state of the art concepts had been used in the house, Britco pointed out a Kohler 'environment bathroom' with corner Jacuzzi tub, built-in security, intercom, central vacuum system and air conditioning. The promotional brochure raved: "The country heritage design blends into the extensive use of marble and the exquisite design of a brass and plexiglass, single spine spiral staircase leading from the living area into the loft. Hardwood and terra cotta floors, along with the marble entry hall, accentuate this interesting blend of heritage and high technology... Heat efficient fireplaces... add to the coziness of this modern little "doll-house."125 In 1990, Michael Ernest, Director of Professional Services for the Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC), contacted the Prize Home Committee about an architectural design competition where several designs would be viewed before hiring an architect. The committee noted that "Mr. Ernest saw potential of elevation of the Prize Home to become a prestigious event. Involving BC architects would provide a large market for fresh ideas."126 In an interview with Mr. Ernest, he reiterated that the competition was encouraged by the Architectural Institute as a means of getting a well-designed home out in public view as opposed to yet another "large, gadget-filled, sponsor's dream."727 It was not until the next year, however, that the Institute became involved and sixty-eight participants picked up the information package from the AIBC. The objectives of the competition were: to add the benefits of architectural design to the 1991 Annual Prize house. In previous years the Prize House has been obtained from a builder who has followed the traditional practice of building from stock plans. The high exposure of the P.N.E. prize house creates an opportunity for innovation and an opportunity to address current concerns for conservation and changing life styles not possible in normal market housing. The recognized need for architectural design also reflects growing market sophistication, the need to deal with high land values and design for new building technologies.128 106 The programme for the house continued: The design opportunity of the 1991 P.N.E. Prize House requires an open program that will bring forth imaginative solutions to contemporary challenges in housing design. For this reason the conditions of competition do not specify either a specific family to design for or provide a list of activities or rooms to be included in the design. Competitors are free to address the social and environmental changes that affect contemporary home design by redefining traditional notions of the spaces normally established in the building program...The competition hopes to bring forth imaginative solutions to...contemporary housing issues: The traditional family of father at work, mother keeping house with 2 or 3 children playing in the back yard is no longer the norm. Today's house should respond to the needs of: 60% of mothers who are working; 30% of households who operate businesses from home; family groupings that include nannies, single parents, independent teenagers, grandparents, and other members of extended families; special needs for privacy and independence these variegated family grouping require.129 Added to this were requirements for technological features and modular construction. Figure 69 PNE Prize Home 1991 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). How did the winner, architect Raymond Ching (Figure 69), respond to this lofty proposal? "Comments from the public received by the committee members reflected that the house was successful."130 The innovative interior featured a family centre for 107 conversation and family meetings at the centre of the house. Plans also included a flexible space to be used as guest site, study of home office. Figure 70 PNE Prize Home 1992 Photograph (PNE Archives). The AIBC prepared the Competition for the 1992 home as well, which was won by architect Charles Moorhead with Marie Nolan and shown in Figure 70. Their design was a two storey traditionally roofed house comprising two distinct sections -living/dining rooms and kitchen were connected by a hall to the second module containing three bedrooms, family room, office and garage. The jury commended this scheme for its ability to integrate into its Tsawwassen neighbourhood context, its variety of elegant spaces, its garage turned away from the street and the fact that "It's a modular building that doesn't look like one."131 Of architectural interest is the third place winner appreciated by the jury for its attempt "to deal with more contemporary aesthetics for the suburb...Despite its exuberant form, this was a buildable, realizable scheme, although it was noted that certain guidelines for the suburb would not be met with this solution (i.e. the roof materials)."132 Even the Architectural Institute was not prepared to select a modern design. 108 T h e variety of styles dur ing this per iod o f Pr ize H o m e s (1987-1993) represented the vis ions o f the range o f players i nvo lved in the s ingle-family home business. T h e i r diversi ty was representative o f the assortment o f homes being bui l t in the L o w e r M a i n l a n d at the same t ime. 2. Representative E x a m p l e : 1989 Pr ize H o m e 109 The 1989 Prize Home, pictured in Figures 71 and 72, typified the contractor-driven houses popular during this era of the PNE. At 1949 square feet, it was a new styled California bungalow with a prominent roof and cascade of smaller roofs delineating different functions from the front facade. Its overall dimensions of 42 feet wide by 60 feet long made it appropriate for a 50 foot wide lot - similar in width at least to the 1934 Model Bungalow but more than twice as deep. The imposing two-car garage wing was the most prominent feature followed, in order from the street, by a bedroom extension and, finally, by the main oversized entry hall. Artificial pilasters held up the garage and bedroom roofs. A broad sidewalk led to the imposing entrance with large transom windows above double doors. Exterior materials were cedar shingles and siding, similar to those used in the Model Bungalow as well as the 1964 and 1984 Prize Homes. 110 I l l Figure 7 3 PNE Prize Home 1989 Floor Plan. The double entry doors opened onto a showy entrance hall. The route led past Doric columns directly through the open living room and through a second set of double doors onto a small deck and down onto a patio. This strong axis dominated and organized the planning of the house with two bedrooms, bath and main bedroom suite to one side and more public rooms to the other. Except for the entry, the exterior did not reflect the interior as the dominant window, complete with false muntin bars, facing the street was, in fact, one of the two bedrooms and the small window fronted the dining room, located immediately inside the front door. At least, as was common in some homes during this period, the main window was not into a bathroom. A secondary, non-descript route led from the garage, through the laundry, past the powder room and into the kitchen. Spaces were delineated by the aforementioned columns, with another set at the entrance to the family room and also by varying ceiling treatments - vaulted space above the living room and coffered ceilings in the main bedroom and family room. Eleven variations of bay windows completed the house. Clearly, the focus of the "Official Designer" - Select Home Designs - was the presentation of an imposing elevation and elaborate interior decorating. Storage in this home would have been non-existent with no basement - except for the garage. Each room had a particular function and no extra or flexible square footage was provided. Energy savings continued to be a major component of this scheme because of the ongoing participation of B.C. Hydro and its Power Smart Campaign. It offered a heat exchange ventilation system and increased insulation to provide maximum comfort and energy efficiency. An energy management system controlled the mechanical systems to be operational only when the house was occupied. The same system also activated lights, drapes, sprinklers, fire and security alarms and automatically decreased the volume of the vacuum cleaner or television with the ringing of the doorbell or telephone. 112 Figure 74 PNE Prize Home 1989 Promotional Brochure sketch from entry through living room (PNE Archives). Although there was no description of interior materials, save the 'marbeline' columns, Figure 74 shows a sketch of the living room and the description from the Prize Home Package brochures illustrated one of its highlights: "The home reflects a joyful rebellion against stereotyped colour patterns. Ranging from bright and animated, to cool almost reverential colours," including "light violet, purple, mauve, emerald green, ruby red, and sapphire blue."133 Public and private spaces were delineated on either side of the main axis through the living room, however, both the public entrance hall and bedroom wing opened directly 113 onto the living room as did the kitchen and breakfast room. The main bedroom, living room and family room opened onto the back garden leaving the distinction between public and private areas blurred. After moving around the house since the Prize Home of 1957, the family room had settled as part of the kitchen/breakfast areas. The relationship between the indoor and outdoor spaces was particularly strong at the rear with transition through increasingly less confined spaces: the living room, a small deck, a larger porch and, finally, the rear garden. As a result of slab-on-grade construction, the entrance led directly in from the walkway although visual access was limited to the small dining window. 3. Review The history of the Prize Homes has always involved boosterism - from the promotion of British Columbia's products and manufacturers in 1934 to the showcasing of home building companies in the 1950s to the publicizing of contractors and developers through the mid 1980s. This latest period highlighted the involvement of three of these groups - contractor organizations, factory-built home companies and architectural associations. With the exception of Dominion Construction, large-scale developers had not played a significant role in the Prize Home. The single-family home industry was dominated by small and medium- sized contractors and the majority of Prize Homes were built by them as well. Architects played a small role as consultants at best to these contracting firms who often designed in-house or bought house plans. The names of the same players reoccurred throughout the years. Involvement in the Prize Home was evidently good for business. Increased liability and insurance costs and a new not-for-profit tax status dampened GVHBA's participation in the Prize Home but the experience was seen as positive. The more glamorous sponsors, such as the kitchen cabinet companies, benefited the most from PNE publicity while less high-profile products received less promotion.134 The responsibility for the single-family home in the Lower Mainland is always changing. 114 The number of visitors to the PNE was leveling off by the early 1990s and competition from other home lotteries was worrying the Prize Home Committee. Nonetheless, the importance of the Prize Home as an attraction at the fair was reiterated by the members throughout this period. The Prize Home Committee itself was disbanded in the early 1990s and responsibility for the.Prize Home was assumed by PNE staff. This administrative position has continued to the present. The suburban sites chosen by the PNE with their broad curved streets did not lend themselves to a New Urbanist approach nor did their large street-facing garages or back garden-facing living spaces. No one was likely to sit in the front of these houses, chatting with passers-by. New Urbanism promoted denser, more varied and better designed suburban communities but the housing was too expensive for the average buyer. Individual contractors, like those associated with GVHBA, were not involved in these developments. Champlain Heights had been the last large piece of land to be redeveloped in Vancouver, but the PNE did not consider a site within its planned community of compact housing. The Board continued with its formula of large single-family homes on large lots as prizes, even though denser residential building was increasing throughout the Lower Mainland. In order to locate affordable properties, the PNE Prize Homes were being located farther and farther from the city, in Surrey, Tsawwassen and finally, in 1993, in Maple Ridge. This lack of affordable land and insistence on the single-family house pushed the selection committee to consider new directions - literally and figuratively - in the following years. Insistence on single-family homes on large lots necessitated the move away from the traditional suburban properties. 115 CHAPTER 7 THE RESORTS : 1994-2004 In the mid-1990s , a major upheaval occurred in the L o w e r M a i n l a n d wi th the emergence o f the " leaky condo" crisis . T h e enormous increase in housing starts and land prices in the 1980s led to a search for cost-effective bu i ld ing . A combinat ion o f factors inc lud ing regulatory, design, construction, and inappropriate use of materials resulted in an inadvertent man-made environment o f premature failure and rot in bui ldings . A l t h o u g h p r imar i ly occur r ing in mul t i - fami ly developments, this crisis also affected s ingle- family homes. A renewed interest i n the environment progressed wi th the green bu i ld ing movement . A t the s ingle- fami ly house l eve l , features such as the use o f recyclable materials, geothermal heating, and green roofs emerged, especial ly in high-end homes. N o t since the mid-1970s had there been such an interest in energy eff iciency. W i t h the price o f a barrel o f o i l surpassing $50 in late 2004, sustainability became the new watchword . A recent report in W o r l d w a t c h , an online journal devoted to environmental ly sustainable societies, for example, compared the costs o f energy used to bu i ld and heat convent ional ly buil t houses versus energy-efficient houses i n V a n c o u v e r for one and thirty years, conc lud ing that substantial savings could be made using sustainable products and bu i ld ing m e t h o d s . 1 3 5 The most important residential development i n the L o w e r M a i n l a n d continued to be the densification o f the down town area wi th major projects in C o a l Harbour , D o w n t o w n South, and False Creek Nor th . A combinat ion o f residential, commerc ia l , 116 and parkland uses have been developed into high-rise neighbourhoods with a variety of dwelling units aimed at a mix of income levels. These redevelopments have brought favourable interest from planning departments of other cities as well as extraordinary sales level and a new hysteria - 'condomania'. The value of building permits for 2004 is over one and a half billion dollars, one and a half times the value of the previous year.136 Within Vancouver, the Vancouver Planning Department continued its overhaul of the single-family neighbourhoods. A second zoning schedule - RS-6 - was adopted in 1996 and has focused on selected design concerns such as roof form and materials. These are written as regulations and, thus, easier to understand and administer. Criticism has been mainly from architects and designers limited by these schedules and a report by Vancouver Community Services suggested that "There is...a concern that the new zone has resulted in purely neo-Tudor or other historicist style houses though enquiries made of design professionals indicate that this is currently a significant market preference regardless of the site's zone."137 The result has been a proliferation of revival styles described by the president of Heritage Vancouver: "They're a product of well-intentioned neighbourhood design review processes," says [Robert] Lemon. "The rezoning of whole parts of the west side to curtail the monster houses led to these hybrid retro-styled buildings that are intended to look like their neighbour for better or for worse. A lot of them have the English Arts and Crafts look, which is quite popular again."138 Some New Urbanism concepts were loosely adapted in suburban developments. By 2004, Vancouver's population increased to over 550,000. Early that year, single-family zoned areas constituted about seventy percent of the land area in Vancouver. Changes to Vancouver's Zoning and Development Bylaw relaxed building code requirements and aljowed each single-family house to accommodate a secondary suite. This will accomplish more than any single advanced technology in facilitating sustainability with the retention of existing houses. As house prices have continued to rise dramatically, rental income will also increase affordability. 117 1. Pr ize H o m e His to ry F i g u r e 75 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1994 Promot ional Brochure ( P N E A r c h i v e s ) . In 1994, the Pr ize H o m e ' s ultimate locat ion was moved away f rom the L o w e r M a i n l a n d (Figure 75). At tendance at the P N E leveled at about one m i l l i o n visi tors and compet i t ion f rom other lotteries was increasing, but the main reason for the move was the escalation in land values i n the L o w e r M a i n l a n d . A t the same time as the percentage o f home ownership was decreasing and rental dwel l ings was increasing in Vancouve r , the opposite was happening i n the region as a w h o l e . 1 3 9 T h e fastest g rowing municipal i t ies were Por t M o o d y , M a p l e R idge , and Su r r ey . 1 4 0 L a n d was, nonetheless, becoming increasingly hard to f ind and decreasingly affordable. Contrast this to fifteen years earlier, when the cost o f land was barely considered as part o f the P r i ze H o m e ; winners had the choice o f locat ing their new house on their o w n piece o f land or on one provided by the P N E . M e d i a announced the change o f site locat ion: Af te r 80 years o f prize homes at the Pac i f ic Nat ional E x h i b i t i o n , the grand prize in this year 's P N E ticket lottery is a change f rom the usual home on a lot in the suburbs. It 's a l uxury getaway on Keats Island. A l l t icket holders w i l l have the chance to w i n a P o w e r Smart L i n d a l Cedar H o m e . . . w i t h a re lax ing . . .ho t tub to enjoy on a huge, private deck. Parked in the dr iveway 118 will be a brand new all-terrain vehicle. And for a quick escape from the city at the end of the day, a... 17.5 foot deluxe boat will be docked at Horseshoe Bay, complete with outboard motor, trailer and one year of moorage and parking at the marina.141 Figure 76 PNE Prize Home 1995 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). In 1995, the Prize Home (Figure 76)site was located on the Sunshine Coast where it has remained to present except for 2003 when the site was located on Bowen Island. Legacy Homes, an independent distributor for Lindal Cedar Homes, were awarded a design-build contract for three years, from 1994 - 1996. Special features of the 1995 Prize Home included wiring for computer and surround sound systems in each room as well as a continued involvement with B.C. Hydro's Power Smart Programme of extra insulation, energy efficient windows and appliances and low flow plumbing fixtures. 119 F i g u r e 77 P N E Pr ize H o m e 1996 Promot ional Brochure ( P N E Arch ives ) . In 1996, the Pr ize H o m e , shown i n Figure 77, increased in size by nearly thirty percent to 3 ,000 square feet. T h e new concept o f 'user fr iendliness ' was introduced. T h e design i nvo lved concepts adopted at the beginning o f the project faci l i ta t ing such future changes as wider doors or an elevator for accessibi l i ty, important for an aging populat ion. T h e promotional brochure stated: Other adaptable and safety features l ike maneuvering room, accessibi l i ty, reinforced wal l s to accommodate grab bars next to the bathtubs, automatic controls for w i n d o w cover ings and integrated zoned security systems, w i l l be buil t into the ini t ia l design o f the home. It w i l l be a showcase for a whole new perspective c o m i n g to the H o u s i n g market. T h i s new v iew of housing has been created because o f the changing populat ion that is demanding more features designed to adapt to a wider range o f needs. 1 4 2 In addi t ion to this consideration g iven to C M H C ' s F l e x - H o u s i n g features, Heal thy H o u s i n g and Power Smart elements were also added wi th environmental ly fr iendly construct ion materials such as carpets o f recycled pop bottles, insulat ion o f recycled newspaper and an under-floor hydronic heating system. React ion to this new v iew o f housing was favorable and the media wrote: U n l i k e some of its g l i tzy predecessors, this year 's P N E prize home is a house for al l people . . .des igned to be user f r iendly . . . env i ronmenta l ly sound and outfitted wi th the latest smart-house technology. W h a t ' s miss ing , 120 thankfully, are the gimmicky architectural features and impossible color schemes that are meant to impress but so often leave show home visitors shaking their heads. It's a safe house to live in...everything done is common 143 sense. Figure 78 PNE Prize Home 1997 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). The 1997 Prize Home (Figure 78) was built by Stevenson Design Works, a custom home and renovation design-build contractor, and was won by a Roman Catholic priest from East Vancouver. This house continued the casual West Coast contemporary design trend of the earlier resort years but included new features such as a 'good morning' room, library alcove and main bedroom suite on the ground floor; the upper floor housed a hobby room, a media/games/exercise room and a computer area. The design was traditional, meant to suggest "a fisherman's lodge in west coast shingle style...traditional family lodge by the coast with a modern use of space and much light complex and cozy spaces, and rooms defined by their own shape."144 It won the Gold Georgie award for best detached single family house of 1997. 121 A survey taken at the 1997 Prize Home by the PNE and titled "What did our visitors think?" outlined visitor preferences. Among features most desirable were the use of space, paint colour, computer alcove, oval window, and library alcove. The distressed cabinets - antiqued for an old world look - proved unpopular and the media room was "a let down."145 Even though it was noted that people would not want to come the next year to view the same house, overall, the house was considered the best yet. In spite of the Sunshine Coast location being considered impractical by the visitors, the concept of resort homes continued. Figure 79 PNE Prize Home 1998 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). The relatively simple style of the house was eclipsed in the next two Prize Homes (Figures 79 and 80) as West Coast casual became English Country / Craftsman in 1998 and full blown French chateau in 1999. The 1998 house was built by Radisson Homes, whose president proclaimed : "Building is great fun any time, but the PNE Prize Home is extra-special. I'm always in search of innovative ways of doing things. 122 Building the PNE Prize Home is a great way of exposing myself to new and exciting technique. It's so important to be on the cutting edge and I benefit from that and so do my clients."146 The popular press wasn't quite sure what to make of it: "It really is an eclectic mix of design styles."147 But the PNE affirmed its decision: "The 1998 PNE Prize Home isn't just about great design or fabulous look and state of the art construction, it's about lifestyle. The lucky winner of the 1998 prize package will get the home of their dreams situated in a place that many people only dream about."148 Figure 80 PNE Prize Home 1999 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). There was no doubt about the design of the 1999 Prize Home. This plan had really gone over the top and the publicity - good and bad - from the ensuing discussion in local and national newspapers resulted in the most financially successful dwelling to date. While the French country design has some critics, it coincides with current design trends. North American designers have recently started to pick up many of its details and European-style country furniture was one of the strongest influences in furniture at the last trend-setting U.S. furniture market in High Point, N.C. Presenting something different and on the leading design edge is intrinsic in the prize home concept. Because it's a major exhibit, people want to see things that are new and different, not the same thing year after year," says ...the general manager of Games and Gaming for the PNE. "The prize home is one of the most trafficked exhibits at the fair with 200,000 people touring the home during the 17 days of the fair.. .This is one of the bigger evolutionary leaps we have taken...149 123 T h e lines were drawn in the battle of styles wi th opinions both for and against the home: " D r e a m home or tacky v i l l a? Tha t ' s the debate Vancouver i tes are hav ing in the two-hour l ineups outside the largest, most luxur ious - and most controversial - prize in the 65-year history of the Pac i f ic Nat iona l E x h i b i t i o n ' s Pr ize H o m e Lottery. T h e designer defended her concept o f the "casual elegance o f French country d e s i g n . . . Y o u see more homes l ike this one i n Europe or Eastern Canada . . . I think i t ' s a little more classy. Y e s , i t ' s a different home for this part o f the w o r l d , but I think people need something n e w . " 1 5 0 Comments ranged f rom: "I think i t ' s beau t i fu l . . .Oh w o w ! Is that ever n i c e ! " 1 5 1 to " " O h m y G o d - a French monster house. . . I t ' s gonna look pretty funny sitt ing on a rock on the Sunshine C o a s t . . . " 1 5 2 In the end, the 1999 Pr ize H o m e proved to be the most popular home to date wi th ticket sales increasing about fifteen percent over the previous year 's record o f $2.5 m i l l i o n . F i g u r e 81 P N E Pr ize H o m e 2000 Photo ( P N E A r c h i v e s ) . 124 The PNE returned to a more contemporary West Coast casual design in 2000 and 2001 (Figure 81 and 86). Stevenson Design Works was again involved in the Prize Home in 2001 and, for the first time, fairgoers could watch the construction of the home on the design/build company's website. According to the contractor, the construction was "an attractive fusion of conventional framing with handcrafted cedar logs and beams...combining the construction practices of handcrafted cedar logs with conventional framing... the best of both worlds in style and design."153 In addition to these two distinct building styles, features included: a style that captures the Best of the West Coast Spirit of British Columbia's residential home construction practices; an environmentally friendly home constructed with leading edge recycled building products and natural products; a smart home that seamlessly incorporates tomorrow's technologies into an inviting atmosphere; and an energy efficient home that reduces emissions and the demand for fossil driven resources.154 Unfortunately, the design build firm did not have enough money to pay its subcontractors and, upon folding the company, still owed roughly $120,000. Citing housing as a tough market, Les Stevenson, President and CEO of Stevenson Design Works, even blamed the downfall of his firm on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 125 #lTHEfJ|l B HOME LOTTERY Figure 82 PNE Prize Home 2002 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). As it did after the financial fiasco of 1981, the PNE retreated to the safety of a known contractor in Britco, the factory home building company, who seized the opportunity to prove that modular building could be attractive, versatile and efficient (Figure 82) . Britco had designed and built the Prize Home in 1989 and has produced the three most recent prizes as well: a Victorian style in 2002, a heritage style with modern interior in 2003 (described in local press as "the Colonial Shaker style"155 and shown in Figure 83) and a West Coast casual / East Coast Cape Cod mix in 2004 won by the woman described in the introduction, who was living in a trailer with her daughter and granddaughter, ten minutes away on the Sunshine Coast. 126 Figure 83 PNE Prize Home 2003 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). In 2003, there was interest expressed by the PNE in buying and renovating a 1910 Arts and Crafts house of 4,300 square feet with seven bedrooms and four fireplaces. As a result of being built on a double lot, it was to be razed and replaced with two new houses. The PNE considered moving it to their site for the 2004 Prize Home but the cost of bringing it up to modern standards was prohibitive. There was some argument that the proposed changes were not necessarily required; new insulated glass windows, for example, were called for to replace the existing leaded ones. However, according to the PNE president, "Unfor tunately , the cost was twice what we normal ly incur in terms of a prize home" 1 5 6 and the scheme was abandoned. 127 Figure 84 Sustainable Condo 2004 Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives). Interesting to note was the concurrent display of the Sustainable Condo at the 2004 PNE (Figure 84). With its motto of 'using less, enjoying more', it described sustainable living in the following manner: "Sustainable living is about making smart choices in your home that reduce energy and water consumption while saving you money. It also means selecting materials that are harvested and manufactured responsibly."157 This display was meant to show possibilities and directions for future living. A local journalist recommended: Go for a tour of the PNE lottery's dream home if you want a vision of how we lived in the past. This year's version has lots of retro dormers and fake 19th century windowpanes. But if you want a glimpse of the future, the sustainable condo is the most engaging, hopeful and entertaining display to be found at our annual fair.158 His advice was not heeded, however, for compared with attendance at the Prize Home, very few people visited the condominium. 128 Figure 85 2004 PNE Prize Home Promotional Brochure (PNE Archives), 2004. The resort Prize Homes of 1994 to 2004 presented a new direction for the PNE. Because of the remote locations, home-building companies seemed better equipped to handle the comprehensive contracts including relocation. Exterior design was not their particular matter, however, and this period of styles was among the most diverse. How was the style chosen for the past few years? Fortified with visitor survey results, the manager of the Prize Home met with a representative from Britco and their interior designer to discuss what they would like to see in the Prize home - a home office, for example or a West Coast style. Photographs of attractive homes were studied. Concern was given to how the house would look on the promotional colour brochure and a selection was made. 2. Representative Example : 2001 Prize Home The Request for Proposal for the 2001 Prize Home was prescriptive and stated : This West Coast home is designed to reflect an informal resort setting with understated elegance. The design manipulates space and color to feel open and continuous, warm and inviting for functional family living. Key rooms, features, and areas on the tour route are evenly distributed throughout the home to allow for a well-rounded flowing tour. Guests will exit the tour delighted with the exquisite details in this unpretentious home.'59 129 Design mandates included: Large kitchen with numerous windows allowing for outdoor light and cutting-edge key features that would allow it to be accurately described as a "gourmet kitchen"; Dedicated home theatre or family entertainment room with door(s) and ability to control light from windows. Must also serve as the source for distributed sound throughout the home; Room themed as a family den or library that includes dedicated space and/or built-ins for home office space; Large master ensuite with a unique item such as a multi-head, whirlpool, body spa, or furniture; Several key design features such as vaulted ceilings, exposed woodwork, expansive windows and decorative finishes; External features such as porches, decks or verandahs that include dedicated space for outdoor deck items such as a BBQ, heat lamp, patio set and/or a sauna; Must meet or exceed all applicable B.C. Hydro energy efficient requirements for designation as a Power Smart home;160 The last mandate was "Dramatic front elevation."161 130 The 2001 Prize Home was a West Coast casual style home to be moved to a half-acre waterfront lot on Daniel Point, near Pender Harbour on the Sunshine Coast. The roof was a cross gable design with a prominent centre gable supported by exposed logs and two smaller gabled dormers housing a bedroom and future shop on the upper floor. This prominent front gable had been evident in all of selected Prize Homes, although the addition of the two smaller gables suggested a Colonial slant to this particular West Coast design; in this example, the gable once again emphasized the front entry and continued, as in the 1964 home, through to the rear elevation. The rear elevation was similar except that the dormers contained a bedroom and a fitness room. A small one-storey section featured laundry and exterior entrance. The building of this residence was a mix of log and conventional frame construction. The roof was metal and siding was a combination of vertical board-and-batten and cultured stone. Although metal was a new roofing material for the Prize Homes, wood siding had been used on all of the selected Prize Homes. Wood windows on all facades were small and deliberately placed with only the great room windows being large enough to take advantage of the water views. The absence of significant side yard windows suggested a suburban setting rather than the half acre property of the intended site. Of interest was the reemergence of wood windows in the past ten years, perhaps a nod to the Sunshine Coast location. The large size and nearly identical front and rear elevations made energy efficiency somewhat of a misnomer, but the house was to meet energy requirements of B.C. Hydro. A 'four-season' sunroom was requested by the PNE in its Request for Proposal: "In particular, the PNE is interested in a sunroom as a separate room or combined with another room, for example: the kitchen, dining room, living room or fitness room."162 Although this addition featured prominently in the advertising, it was not portrayed in the visual publicity, either hiding behind a tree in the rendering or unlabelled in the accompanying plans. Did it not suit the aesthetic or the energy efficiency guidelines? 131 Upper Floor Figure 87 PNE Prize Home 2001 Main and Upper Floor Plans. Upon entering the double-height entry, lit from above by the oversize clerestory windows, one was immediately drawn on a direct axis through log columns to the centre post of the great room windows. This entry progression was similar to the 1989 Prize Home, but without access to the rear yard and waterfront. Flanking the entry were a well-located front hall closet and powder room to one side and a small, L-132 shaped home office on the other. The main bedroom suite was situated on this floor with sitting area, walk-in closet and window-seat. The ensuite featured double sinks, a steam shower and, through another set of log columns, a sunken tub with high windows precluding the water view. To the right of the office lay the 'gourmet kitchen' facing the street through a bay window, with dining room, entered through another set of log columns, and laundry room toward the water side. Stairs by the main bedroom brought the visitor up to a second floor which housed - in addition to two small bedrooms and a bathroom - storage, future shop and fitness centre. Furnishings were by Roots who encouraged the winner to "relax in the luxury of the furniture as you would in their fine line of clothing."163 Additional features included a garage (missing in the visuals like the sunroom) complete with power tools, a home theatre, fitness equipment and boat. The location of the main bedroom on the main floor continued a trend of one level living for new housing, anticipating limited mobility of the baby-boom generation, perhaps, or a distinct separation of generations living within the house. Bedrooms were all located in the same wing. The location of the study off the front entrance reflected the importance of the home office although the French doors impeded greatly on the already small space. Four thirteen-inch televisions, each on its own station, were more popular with male than female visitors.764 The location of the living and dining rooms were given prime views over the ocean with other views shared by small windows in the ensuite, laundry, one bedroom and fitness centre. The main bedroom, third bedroom and kitchen faced away from the water. The kitchen space was vast and ill-defined on two sides, spilling out into the corridor fronting the principal rooms. Although called a great room, the living room was separated from the dining area by a pair of log columns and from the kitchen by a corridor; this was not in keeping with common perception or with the Oxford Canadian Dictionary's definition of a great room as a "spacious multi-purpose open-concept room in a house". Most of the living in this house likely occurred in the real great room - the kitchen - with its modest window facing the street and its vague edges. As had been evident in many Prize Homes, additional square footage (in this case to bring up to the prerequisite 3000 133 square feet) was spread out to include a vast fitness room and large future workshop or home theatre. Storage was a concern because of the lack of basement. These large upper floor rooms provided flexible square footage for a number of options including storage as did the oversized walk-in linen closet. The delineation between public and private spaces was clear with the living and dining rooms immediately accessible from the front entry. With the garage located beside the main bedroom, reaching the kitchen necessitated a walk through the main entrance and grand hall. It was unclear where the kitchen table would be placed. The main bedroom on the ground floor as well as the additional two bedrooms and bath on the upper floor were well segregated from the principal living spaces. The two-storey design with main bedroom suite on the ground floor necessitated the flexible space to be located on the second floor near the bedrooms. f The relationship between interior and exterior was strong with access on grade but little attention was paid to outdoor living. The front door was easily accessed up a few broad steps but the transition towards the waterfront was limited to an unprotected utility door into the laundry room. No French doors opened onto a deck, indeed, there was no outdoor living shown at all. This seemed an oversight, definitely not taking advantage of the waterfront site. Budget might have been the cause. 3. Review Although most of the resort homes were designed in a loosely 'west coast casual' style, the homes of 1998 and 1999 were departures. The staff at PNE wanted to "try something new."165 This mish mash of styles reflected what was happening in the Lower Mainland with its own variety of designs. To take advantage of additional square footage offered by the Planning Department as well as to appeal to a broad base of buyers, many homes were being designed in revival styles; even revival modernist has become popular. 134 A survey conducted in 2003 by the PNE gave some idea of the Prize Home's direction in terms of style. In response to the question, "What style of home would you like to see next year?" the responses were in order of popularity: West Coast (32%), Country (13%), Queen Anne/Victorian (13%), Cape Cod (12%), Cottage (11%), Craftsman (8%), Tudor (6%) and Georgian (4%). Casual/informal (32%) topped the list of answers to the question "What interior decor style would you like to see next year?" followed by Country (21%), Modern/Sleek (20%), Traditional/Formal (17%) and Eclectic (9%).166 As one newspaper journalist described the French Chateau Prize Home of 1999: "I have to admit it would look a lot better on a country estate near Bordeaux but we seem to be quite happy to accept Elizabethan Tudor mansions next to Tudor mansions next to Spanish haciendas next to Vancouver specials. So why not add a French country villa to complete the architectural display of bad taste?"167 135 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS The PNE Prize Home is seventy years old. It has followed a circuitous route through town and country, following fad and fashion. Lineups remain as long as ever and ticket sales continue to increase. The PNE has understood that a combination of tradition and change has made this happen. According to its staff, fairgoers want a new angle every year, but not too new.168 Success for the PNE has been established in terms of economics, promotion and attraction. As a non-profit organization, the PNE is interested in which prize home will sell the most tickets. Increasing profits have funded many of its non-revenue producing programmes. Until the late 1980's, the Prize Home had the lottery market to itself (except for the Irish Sweepstakes, established like the Model Bungalow in the 1930's). Over the past fifteen years, the high priced tickets ($100) of the Prize Home's competition have not been a concern for the PNE. In spite of rivals lowering their ticket prices to $50 in the past few years, Prize Home profits continue to rise. One of the fair's original mandates was to provide opportunities for British Columbian manufacturers and products to be displayed and made available to the public. In the earlier days, some of the Prize Homes could scarcely be seen because of the amount of advertising displayed. Nowadays, publicity is equally important but more subtle; small signs and brochures fulfill the same purpose. As an attraction, many fairgoers attend the PNE specifically to see the Prize Home. When asked who visits the home, Anne Barbosa, Manager of the Prize Home Lottery, noted that women of all ages and young couples are the main visitors; men are being enticed with electronics and barbecues. Her group at the PNE collectively thinks about what is in style and adds these features to appeal to as many fairgoers as possible and entice them to the PNE. 1 6 9 136 Tradition and change have combined to make the Prize Home successful in these economic, boosterism and attraction terms. The selection committee has generally understood the winning formula of presenting a Prize Home package. The excitement and drama of the selection of the winning ticket has coincided with the last day of the fair - Labour Day - for the past fifty years. This tradition is entrenched in the local population and media with the annual description of the home a regional highlight at the beginning of the PNE in the middle of August; the lucky winner is publicized at the end. Although tempted by the newness of the gold brick prize in the 1960's, the selection committee quickly returned to the Prize Home package after disappointing ticket sales. In spite of the increased value of the gold, it did not capture the imagination of the public. When asked why they buy tickets for the Prize Home, half of the visitors responded "It's a tradition."170 There are no plans to change the existing format of a dream home. Whether or not the North American dream of owning a detached single-family home is still reasonable in the Lower Mainland is questionable and beyond the scope of this paper but it remains the wish of many. As noted by Canadian architectural historian, Harold Kalman: "House is a word that denotes a particular building-type and is synonymous with 'dwelling' or 'residence', whether one is referring to a mansion or to a humble homestead...Most houses are considered also to be a home, a more emotive word that eludes definition."171 Home represents notions of comfort, intimacy and domesticity according to Witold Rybczynski, a contemporary architect writing on the subject of housing.172 Similarly, in the early 1950's, Robert Woods - an early writer on residential design - wrote that homes "should be cheerful, tasteful, hopeful, should invoke wonder, and suggest friendliness."173 It is this lure for a traditional home and garden and the happiness that they represent that sells tickets at the PNE. More than half of the Prize Home visitors are there to see, as noted in the results of the 1997 Prize Home survey, "the house they dream of winning."174 The Prize Home committee has been successful by ensuring that the prize is this single-family home in the traditional sense. 137 At the same time as recognizing the value of the Prize Home's tradition, the selection committee has appreciated the importance of newness and change. As early as the 1950's, the PNE began its mission by alternating its major participant - Pan-abode - with other precut and prefabricated home companies. The 1960's saw the five year monopoly of Beedie Construction as supplier of the home, but when the president of that company made the seemingly reasonable suggestion of building a permanent concrete pad on the PNE site for future Prize Homes, the selection committee turned him down and chose a rival to build the next home. Until recently, the builders and designers of the Prize Home changed every year or two but, with the steep learning curve required to relocate the dwellings in the remote locations that are now offered, company contracts have recently been renewed. The selected Prize Homes (1934, 1957, 1964, 1984, 1989, 2001) can be seen as representative of shifts occurring in the Lower Mainland. Just as the Prize Home committee used a pattern of traditional format and change to continued success, so did the houses themselves represent this combination. The fixed elements include the following: . the prize always consisted of a single-family house; . houses have not been designed for their particular site - with few exceptions most houses could be located anywhere; . exterior materials have remained largely unchanged - wood shingles and siding - reflecting one of B.C.'s main industries; . public/private concerns have generally been well addressed; . flexible design elements have been evident throughout the Prize Homes with the unfinished second floor of 1934, multi-purpose rooms of 1964 and 1984 and undetermined rooms of 2001; . sustainable design features have also been apparent from long-lasting materials in 1934, natural materials throughout the years and energy-efficient design since the early 1960's; energy was a primary concern for all homes from the coal-burning furnace of 1934, electric until 1964 and gas to 2001. Changing elements include: . a variety of players have been responsible for the Prize Homes; . house forms have become more complex with simple rectangular and L-shaped boxes giving way to multifaceted shapes in 1989 and 2001; . similarly, roof structures have changed from simple gables to a complex system of roofs in 1989 and 2001; . automobiles have increased their visual prominence from a single car carport in 1964 to a prominent double-car garage facing the street in 1989; . square footage generally increased except when constrained by budget or PNE request from 950 in 1934,1465 in 1957,1850 in 1964, 1950 in 1984 and 1989 to 3000 in 2001; . floor plans have become more open with the number of doors decreasing from nine in 1934 to five or six in following years; . number of rooms has increased from 5 in 1934,8 until 1984,9 in 1989 to 12 in 2001; . main living areas moved to the rear of the house in 1989 resulting in disproportionately small window placement towards the street; . concurrently, outdoor living has moved to the rear yard; . number of bedrooms has increased from two to three in 1957 and has most often remained there as a requirement from the PNE; . family room was introduced in 1957 and has moved around the house, not yet showing a settling trend; . kitchen has increased in size (from 110 square feet in 1934,127 in 1957,148 in 1964,204 in 1984,208 in 1989 to 252 in 2001) and prominence, moving from rear to front of house; . bathrooms have increased in number from one to two in 1964 and to three in 1989 and 2001; 139 . ensuites have increased in features and size from 30 square feet in 1964,40 in 1984,140 in 1989 to 147 in 2001. Without a specific client in mind, the designers of the Prize Homes followed trends and styles throughout the years. Although some design guidelines were mandated by the PNE (for example, total square footage and number of bedrooms), considerable latitude was given in most other areas. While some concepts remained the same, such as public/private concerns, sustainability and flexibility, with the exception of exterior building, most stylistic features including form, size and plan have changed. The rotation of house builders also resulted in annual stylistic changes to the Prize Homes. To maintain interest in the draw, annual competitive bids were required. Although serious consideration was given to renovating Ron Thorn's 1981 Prize Home for the following year, for example, the Prize Home committee realized that the publicity would be too negative. A new and different prize had to be chosen each year and a variety of players vied for the opportunity. These ranged from organizations such as CMHC, AIBC and BCIT to developers, contractors, home building manufacturers, architects, designers, companies and suppliers and the PNE managed their ebb and flow. They all wanted to be associated with the Prize Home just as they jostles for control within the local single-family home building industry. Gimmicks were also prescribed, as part of the annual changes to the home, as this note to prospective bidders suggests: "Conversational features are expected. There should be something that the public will view with enthusiasm and talk about in a favourable light."175 Matching dog-house with live-in poodle and sybaritic baths are some attention-grabbing examples. However, as originally envisaged, the Prize Home has neither been of the very 'latest' nor always of the very highest type. 140 In the 1930's, while architects were introducing a modern style and, even in Vancouver, such residential examples were emerging, the 1934 Model Bungalow was built in the Craftsman style that had dominated Vancouver residential construction earlier in the century. This trend, of being behind the leading architectural styles, continued throughout the selected time periods of the Prize Home. While Vancouver architects were winning awards and global recognition during the 1950s for their domestic building with its strong relation to local site conditions, the PNE Prize Homes were mostly prefabricated and precut, promoted by their construction companies much as the Model Bungalow had been earlier. In terms of construction, these houses did not resemble the bungalows being built throughout Vancouver during the same time but rather some sort of war-time, prefabricated building. The next period (1960-1975) saw the emergence of modernism in the Prize Homes, but this came decades after its emergence in residential design and during a time when architects were becoming critical of the style. During this period, however, there was a similarity with homes being built in the Lower Mainland as much of the essential, inexpensive post-war housing construction was giving way to more commodious dwellings. As homeowners around the nation stuffed their attics with old telephone books for insulation and replaced their leaded glass windows with aluminum double paned frames, however, at the PNE no attention was paid to the energy crisis. As the energy crisis became more acute, the Prize Home did finally respond with the 1976 solar house -a model of West Coast energy efficient design. This decade (1976-1986) also bracketed the transformation of the lands on either side of False Creek from the new housing on the south in 1976 to Expo 86 occupying the north and east shores. Meanwhile, as high tech, the heritage movement and finally Post Modernism swept the continent's domestic scene, the Prize Home tried to capture a West Coast aesthetic 141 as in the 1981 Ron Thorn house. Both of these bold designs (1976, 1981) were followed by modest proposals in succeeding years. And, while New Urbanism was gaining importance as the major domestic trend of the next period (1987-1993), the PNE was caught in a battle between various interest groups vying for the winning scheme. Ubiquitous California-styled designs predominated but with Britco's modular home and the AIBC's design competitions, there was a jumble of fashions all intended for large suburban sites. Perhaps this period most reflected the mix of styles in the Lower Mainland at this time. At the same time as the Prize Home Committee expanded its objectives, it realized the importance of retaining the established format. Since 1994, due to increasing land costs, the Prize Home has abandoned Vancouver and the Lower Mainland. It has clung to its single-family format on a large piece of land but even the suburbs have become too expensive a location; the one-family-per-one-lot-dream has become increasingly difficult to attain in the Lower Mainland. Although the vacation sites of 1994-2004 could rival those on the North Shore so popular with the early Vancouver modernists, the formulaic mix of revival designs of the most recent Prize Homes could be located anywhere. But this was not a problem. Along with newness, the PNE understood its market in choosing the Prize Home. The importance of a design that would appeal to fairgoers was noted in the Request for Proposals in the following way: "Since we are appealing to the public in general, we suggest that you avoid the extremes in design of "Ultra-Modern" or "Ultra-Conservative."176 Granted, this was written shortly after Ron Thorn's design was followed with a very conventional one - modern to conservative -but the guidelines orienting design to the general public have continued. Only rarely has the PNE missed its target in its selection of a generally acceptable design and, when this happened, it has quickly refocused. The Prize Home has never been at the forefront of design but there has been a genuine effort at acknowledging the domestic dreams of its visitors. In addition to providing consumer driven amenities such as 142 gourmet kitchens and audio-visual home theatres, the PNE has allowed itself to be been nudged forward by organizational interests such as BC Hydro and CMHC who saw the Prize Home as an important vehicle to reach the public with their message. As Harold Kalman states:"Architecture...is an expression of society's values, and it is in our buildings that we discover much about our distinct... nature."177 The Prize Homes have appealed to a middle ground and, as society has become more conservative, so has the Prize Home. The modern homes up to the early 1980s have been replaced with more traditional styles just as the world of possibilities and modernity of those years have been replaced with our more complacent era, perhaps more premodern than postmodern. The 1910 home unwanted by the young fairgoer in the introduction has become the dream home of the 2000s, while the modern style of the very Prize Homes that she aspired to live in has become another revivalist fashion. The battle of styles - between modern and traditional - will continue but people will seek homes that express warmth, friendliness, charm, and human scale. The PNE Prize Home was never the 'very latest' nor rarely the 'highest' type but its continued success affirms its resonance with a great number of fairgoers and ticket buyers. House lots and styles have radiated outward from the city to the suburbs and now to sites outside of the Lower Mainland. But every day during the fair, there is a rush to the Prize Home: two-hour lineups attest to its popularity and ticket sales continue to rise. With few exceptions, the Prize Home has captured the imagination of fairgoers. Buying a ticket means buying a dream - a single family home and the life it entails. The combination of traditional format and annual change has made the Prize Home a success. The Prize Home has been used and abused by vested interests and, even, by winners. "But despite the prize home's tarnished image, the public continues to line up every year. Because, above all, the PNE grand prize still represents a dream come true."178 In the end, this is what the PNE Prize Home is all about. 143 NOTES Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Minutes of VEA Board of Control, 13 June 1934, CVA. 2 VEA. The Ideal Bungalow. Publicity Brochure, 1934. 3 Bisetty, Krisendra. Win gets woman out of tiny trailer. Vancouver Sun, 08 September, 2004, p. Bl . 4 www.pne.bc.ca/homelottery/prize_home.htm. 5 Minutes 01 April 1981 Prize Home Committee, CVA. 6 Minutes of VEA Preliminary Meeting, 31 May 1907, CVA. 7 Minutes of VEA Board of Directors, 03 July 1934, CVA 8 Keith Beedie, President of Beedie Construction and contractor of 1963 Prize Home, interview by author, 10 December, 2003. 9 Wendy Varner, librarian, UBC School of Architecture Reading Room, interview by author, 29 October, 2004. Chapter 2: The Model Bungalow 1934 1 0 Minutes of VEA Board of Control, 13 June 1934, CVA. 1 1 VEA. The Ideal Bungalow. Promotional Brochure, 1934. 1 2 Ibid. 1 3 City of Vancouver, Financial Statements and Annual Reports, 1920-36; Records of the Department of Permits and Licenses, Building Department, Building Reports, 1929-56, 125-A-l, files 2-5, CVA. 1 4 V.E.A. Bulletins, 1930-1940, CVA. 1 5 Peter Ward, A History of Domestic Space: Privacy and the Canadian Home, Vancouver, UBC Press, 1999, 38. 1 6 John Cushman Fistere, "Skyline architects turn to houses," House and Garden, January 1934, 34. 1 7 Macdonald, Bruce. Vancouver A Visual History. Vancouver, Talonbooks, 1992, 45. 1 8 Donald Luxton, Building the West: Early Architects of British Columbia. Vancouver, Talonbooks, 2003, 438. 1 9 VEA, The Ideal Bungalow, Promotional Brochure, 1934. 2 0 Ibid. 2 1 Ibid. 2 2 Ibid. 2 3 Ibid. 2 4 Maxine Dalfo, owner of 2812, Dundas Street for over forty years, interview by author, 25 November, 2004. Chapter 3: The Prefabs 1952-1959 2 5 Macdonald, Bruce. Vancouver A Visual History. Vancouver, Talonbooks, 53. 2 6 http://serverl.fandm.edU/levittown/one/e.html 144 wvvvv.capitalcentury.com/1951 Jon Blackwell, "1951: American dream houses, all in a row. The Trentonian. 2 8 Carol Moore Ede, Canadian Architecture 1960/70, Toronto: Burns and MacEachern Limited, 1971, 7. 2 9 Harold Kalman, Ron Phillips and Robin Ward, Exploring Vancouver: The Essential Architecture Guide, UBC Press, Vancouver, 1993, 204. 3 0 Minutes of PNE Board of Control, 14 April 1948, CVA. 3 1 Minutes of PNE Board of Control, 22 April 1953, letter dated 11 April 1953, CVA! 3 2 Graham Dixon, retired president of Pan-abode, interview by author, 03 November, 2004. 3 3 Minutes of PNE Board of Governors, 06 June 1955, CVA. 3 4 Minutes of PNE Forum (Ventures) Committee, 19 March 1959, CVA. 3 5 Graham Dixon, retired president of Pan-abode, interview by author, 03 November, 2004. 3 6 Cawker, Ruth and William Bernstein. Contemporary Canadian Architecture. Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1982, p. 55. 3 7 Macdonald, Bruce. Vancouver A Visual History. Vancouver, Talonbooks, 57, 61. 3 8 Vancouver Sun, 31 October 1973. 3 9 Vancouver Province, 11 January, 1975. 4 0 Vancouver Province, 10 April, 1975. 4 1 Harold Kalman, Ron Phillips and Robin Ward, Exploring Vancouver: The Essential Architecture Guide, UBC Press, Vancouver, 1993, 795. 4 2 Max Wyman (Ed.) Vancouver Forum : Old Powers, New Forces. "To Understand the City We Make" by Arthur Erickson. Vancouver. D. W. Friesen & Sons Ltd. 1992, 154. 4 3 Chalmers, Graeme and Frances Moorcroft. British Columbia Houses : A Guide to the Styles of Domestic Architecture in British Columbia. Vancouver, Western Education Development Group, Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction, University of British Columbia, 1981, 175. 4 4 Ibid., 159. 4 5 Ibid., 179. 4 6 www.vancouverspecial.com 4 7 Chalmers, Graeme and Frances Moorcroft. British Columbia Houses : A Guide to the Styles of Domestic Architecture in British Columbia. Vancouver, Western Education Development Group, Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction, University of British Columbia, 1981, 191. 4 8 http://www.beediegroup.ca/htdocs/beedie_history.html 4 9 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, 03 February 1962, CVA. 5 0 Minutes of PNE Board of Directors, 15 March 1961, CVA. 5 1 Minutes of PNE Board of Directors, 27 June 1962, CVA. 5 2 Minutes of PNE Board of Directors, 08August 1962, CVA. 5 3 Minutes of PNE Programme committee, 24 January 1963, CVA. 5 4 Ibid. 5 5 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, 14 March 1963, CVA. 5 6 Ibid. 145 5 7 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, (BApril 1964, CVA. 5 8 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, 25 January 1965, CVA. 5 9 PNE Promotional Brochure, 1966. 6 0 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, 06 December 1965, CVA. 6 1 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, 12 December, 1966, CVA. 6 2 Vancouver Sun, 03 October 1968. 6 3 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, 21 January 1969, CVA. 6 4 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, 25 November 1969, CVA. 6 5 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, 16 November 1970, CVA. 6 6 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, 04 August 1972, CVA. 6 7 Minutes of PNE Programme Committee, 05 December 1973, CVA. 6 8 Vancouver Sun, 24 August, 1974. 6 9 Ibid. 7 0 Vancouver Sun, 16 September 1974. 7 1 Vancouver Sun, 17 September 1974. 7 2 http://www.lerc.educ.ubc.ca/LERC/courses/481/keith/webwork/lifewriting/2001fall/ Lifetime.html 7 3 Beedie Construction Co. Ltd. Homes of Distinction. 1964, 1. 7 4 Beedie Construction Co. Ltd. Homes of Distinction. 1964, 4. 7 5 John Mackie, "A century and a quarter of Vancouver homes," Vancouver Sun, Friday, June 4, 2004, C5. Chapter 5: West Coast 1976-1986 7 6 Macdonald, Bruce. Vancouver A Visual History. Vancouver, Talonbooks, 61, 65. 7 7 City of Vancouver Planning Department. Information Sheet: City Facts Census Data Series : Average household size, city, 1951-2001, from Statistics Canada. 7 8 Harold Kalman, The Concise History of Canadian Architecture. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2000, 845. 7 9 Max Wyman, (Ed.) Vancouver Forum : Old Powers, New Forces, "To Understand the City we Make" by Arthur Erickson. Vancouver. D. W. Friesen & Sons Ltd. 1992, 154. 8 0 Minutes of PNE Executive Committee, 08 March 1978, CVA. 8 1 Debie Leyshon, PNE Director of Production, interview by author, 23 November, 2004. 8 2 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 10 June 1981, CVA. 8 3 Douglas Shadbolt, Ron Thorn The Shaping of an Architect. Douglas & Mclntyre, Vancouver, 1995. 8 4 PNE Promotional Brochure. 8 5 Steve Quigley, former employee of The Thorn Partnership, interview by author, 25 March 2004. 8 6 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 04 August 1981, CVA. 8 7 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 15 September 1981, CVA. 8 8 Vancouver Sun, 11 September, 1981. 146 8 9 Ibid. 9 0 Debie Leyshon, PNE Director of Operations, interview by author, 23 November 2004. 9 1 Minutes of PNE Joint Finance and Executive Committee, 15 September 1981, CVA. 9 2 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 02 December 1981, CVA. 9 3 Vancouver Sun, 05 December 1981. 9 4 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 30 December 1981, CVA. 9 5 Minutes of PNE Exec Committee in camera, 07 July 1982, CVA. 9 6 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 12 March 1982, CVA. 9 7 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 21 March 1983, CVA. 9 8 Minutes of PNE Board of Directors in camera, 15 June 1983, CVA. 9 9 Memo to Bob Matwiv from JW Swis, 13 September 1983, CVA. 1 0 0 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 21 March 1983, CVA. 1 0 1 Ibid. 1 0 2 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 03 December 1984, CVA. 1 0 3 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 13 July 1984, CVA. 1 0 4 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 10 February 1984, CVA. 1 0 5 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 19 November 1984, CVA. 1 0 6 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 19 July 1985, CVA. 1 0 7 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 20 September 1985, CVA. 1 0 8 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 19 July 1985, CVA. 1 0 9 PNE Promotional Brochure "Home Highlights : 1986 PNE Prize Package," PNE Archives. 1 1 0 B.C. Hydro Tie-in Energy Management News, Volume 12, No. 3, June, 1986, p.l. 1 1 1 Promotional brochure for 1984 PNE Prize Home, PNE Archives. 1 1 2 Ibid. 1 1 3 Ibid. Chapter 6: Battle of the Boosters 1987-1993 1 1 4 http://www.seasidefl.com/communityHistory3.asp 1 1 5 Lisa Taylor, ed. Housing: Symbol, Structure, Site, New York: Rizzoli, 1990, 151. 1 1 6 Macdonald, Bruce. Vancouver A Visual History. Vancouver, Talonbooks, 65. 1 1 7 PNE'87 Fair Facts. 1 1 8 Balcom, Susan, Vancouver Sun, August 1987. 1 1 9 1993 PNE Prize Home promotional pamphlet. 1 2 0 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 29 October 1988, CVA 1 2 1 Ibid. 1 2 2 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 10 January 1990, CVA. 1 2 3 Ibid. 1 2 4 Ibid. 1 2 5 PNE Prize Lottery Package promotional pamphlet. 1 2 6 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 27 February 1990, CVA. 1 2 7 Michael Ernest, Director of Professional Services, AIBC, interview by author, 19 November, 2004. 147 1 2 8 Architectural Competition Conditions for 1991 P.N.E. Prize House - House of the Future PNE Archives. 1 2 9 Ibid. 1 3 0 Minutes of PNE Prize Home Committee, 01 October 1990, CVA. 1 3 1 Jury comments, Randle Iredale Professional Advisor, 05 April, 1992, p. 7. 1 3 2 Ibid., 11 commenting on entry from Russell Acton Architect. 1 3 3 PNE brochure "Home Highlights : PNE Prize Package:. 1 3 4 Renee Auer, Membership Services Coordinator, GVHBA, interview by author, 17 November, 2004. Chapter 7: The Resorts: 1994-2004 1 3 5 "Matters of Scale". Worldwatch Online Journal. May/June, 2004. 1 3 6 City of Vancouver. Residential Building Statistics. Community Services, Vancouver, 2004. 1 3 7 City of Vancouver. Summary of Municipal Planning Controls for Typical Single-Family Residential Areas. Community Services, Vancouver, 2004. 1 3 8 John Mackie, "A century and a quarter of Vancouver homes," Vancouver Sun, Friday, June 4, 2004, CI. 1 3 9 City of Vancouver Planning Department. Information Sheet: City Facts Census Data Series : Tenure of dwellings, City of Vancouver and GVRD, 1971-2001, from Statistics Canada. 1 4 0 City of Vancouver Planning Department. Information Sheet: City Facts Census Data Series : Housing Tenure and Structure Type 2001 Census, from Statistics Canada. 1 4 1 The Tri City News, 03 July 1994. 1 4 2 PNE Prize Home brochure, 1996. 1 4 3 Susan Balcom, "Common sense is key to PNE prize home," Vancouver Sun, 17 August, 1996, HI. 1 4 4 PNE promotional brochure 1997. 1 4 5 PNE Survey, "What did our visitors think?" August, 1997, PNE Archives. 146 pj^g promotional brochure quoting Radisson Homes president Brian Lavallee 1 4 7 Vancouver Sun, 10 July, 1998. 1 4 8 PNE Prize Home Promotional Brochure, 1998. 1 4 9 "A room-by-room tour of the 1999 PNE prize home," Vancouver Sun July 12, 1999. 1 5 0 Susan Hiller, "Dream-home controversy rages at exhibition," National Post, ? August, 1999. 1 5 1 Peter Clough, "PNE;s dream home a faux-French nightmare," Vancouver Province, 27 June, 1999. 1 5 2 Ibid. 1 5 3 Stevenson Design Works Ltd., Promotional Brochure, 2001. 1 5 4 Ibid. 155 Britco builds fourth PNE prize home. Langley Advance News, 01 August, 2003, 11. 1 5 6 John Mackie, "Heritage homes await fate," Vancouver Sun, 01 August, 2003, B3. 148 1 5 7 The Sustainable Condo Publicity Brochure, August 2004. 1 5 8 Trevor Boddy, "A Condo with eco-smarts," Vancouver Sun, 31 August, 2004, B2-3. 1 5 9 Pacific National Exhibition. Request for Proposal 2001 PNE Prize Home. Pacific National Exhibition, Vancouver, 2001. 1 6 0 Ibid. 1 6 0 Ibid. 1 6 2 Ibid. 1 6 3 PNE Prize Home Promotional Brochure 2001 1 6 4 Anne Barbosa, Manager of PNE Prize Home Lottery, interview by author, 23 November, 2004. 1 6 5 Anne Barbosa, Manager PNE Prize Home, interview by author, 23 November, 2004. 1 6 6 PNE Prize Home Survey Summary, 2003. 1 6 7 Peter Clough, "Love it or hate it: PNE prize home a split decision," Vancouver Province, 27 June, 1999. Chapter 8: Conclusions 168Debie Leyshon, Director of Production, PNE, interview by author, 23 November, 2004. 1 6 9 Anne Barbosa, Manager PNE Prize Home, 23 November, 2004. 1 7 0 PNE Prize Home Survey, 2003. 1 7 1 Harold Kalman, The Concise History of Canadian Architecture, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2000, 596. 1 7 2 Witold Rybczynski, Home A Short History of an Idea, New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1986. 1 7 3 Robert Woods Kennedy, The House and the Art of its Design, New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1953, 509. 1 7 4 PNE Prize Home Survey, 1997. 1 7 5 Request for Proposals, 1983 Pacific National Exhibition Prize Home 1 7 6 Request for Proposals, 1983 Pacific National Exhibition Prize Home. 1 7 7 Harold Kalman, The Concise History of Canadian Architecture, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2000, 596. 1 7 8 Vancouver Sun, August 21, 1982. 149 SOURCES CONSULTED Books Adams, Annmarie. The Eichler Home: Intention and Experience in Postwar Suburbia. Gender, Class and Shelter. Eds. Elizabeth Collins Cromley and Carter L. Hudgins. Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture 5. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 1995. All wood, John. The Great Exhibitions. London: Studio Vista, 1977. Bauer, Catherine. Modern Housing. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1934. Breen, David and Kenneth Coates. The Pacific National Exhibition. An Illustrated History. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1982. Breen, David and Kenneth Coates. Vancouver's Fair: An Administrative and Political History of the Pacific National Exhibition. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1982. Camesasca, Ettore. History of the House. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1971. Carter, Novia. Making Man's Environment: Housing. Toronto: Nelson Canada Limited, 1981. Cawker, Ruth and William Bernstein. Contemporary Canadian Architecture. Toronto: Fitzhenry & Whiteside, 1982. Chalmers, Graeme and Frances Moorcroft. British Columbia Houses : A Guide to the Styles of Domestic Architecture in British Columbia. Vancouver, Western Education Development Group, Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction, University of British Columbia, 1981. Clayton Research Associates and Scanada Consultants. The Housing Industry: Perspective and Prospective. Ottawa: CMHC, 1989. 150 Cohn, Jan. The Palace or the Poorhouse: The American House as a Cultural Symbol. East Lansing: The Michigan State University Press, 1979. Colton, Kent W. Housing in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Wertheim Publications Committee, 2003. Davis, Chuck, ed. The Greater Vancouver Book. The Linkman Press, Surrey, B.C., 1997. Denhez, Marc. The Canadian Home From Cave to Electronic Cocoon. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1994. Downing, A. J. The Architecture of Country Houses. New York: 1969. Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. Suburban Nation The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press, 2000. Ede, Carol Moore. Canadian Architecture 1960/70. Toronto: Burns and MacEachern Limited, 1971. Fish, Gertrude S., ed.. The Story of Housing. New York: Macmillan, 1979. Franck, Karen A. and Sherry Ahrentzen. New Households New Housing. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989. Friedman, Avi and David Krawitz. Peeking through the Keyhole: The Evolution of North American Homes. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2002. Gans, Herbert J. The Levittowners ; ways of life and politics in a new suburban community. New York: Pantheon Books, 1967. Hayden, Dolores. Redesigning the American Dream: the future of housing, work, and family life. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1984. Hayden, Dolores. The Grand Domestic Revolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1995. 151 Hayden, Dolores. Building suburbia: green fields and urban growth, 1820-2000. New York: Pantheon Books, 2003. Hunter, Christine. Ranches, Rowhouses & Railroad Flats American Homes: How they Shape our Landscapes and Neighborhoods. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., 1999. Jacobs, Jane. The Rise and Fall of the American City. New York: Random House, 1961. Jones, A. Quincy and Frederick E. Emmons. Builders' Homes for Better Living. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1957. Kalman, Harold. The Concise History of Canadian Architecture. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2000. Kennedy, Robert Woods. The House and the Art of its Design. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation. 1953. King, Anthony D. The Bungalow: The production of a global culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul* 1984. Livesey, Graham, Michael McMordie and Geoffrey Simmins. Twelve Modern Houses 1945-1985. Calgary: Aris Press and University of Calgary Press, 1995. Lorimer, James. The Ex : A Picture History of the Canadian National Exhibition. Toronto: James Lewis & Samuel, Publishers, 1973. Luxton, Donald. Building the West Early Architects of British Columbia. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2003. Macdonald, Bruce. Vancouver A Visual History. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 1992. Marcus, Clare Cooper. House as a Mirror of Self. Berkeley: Conari Press, 1995. Moore, Charles, Allen, Gerald and Donlyn Lyndon. The Place of Houses. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974. Murray, James A. The Architecture of Housing. Ottawa: Canadian Housing Design Council, 1962. 152 Neutra, Richard. Life and Human Habitat. Stuttgart: Alexander Koch, 1956. Rapoport, Amos. House Form and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1969. Roberts, Jennifer. Good Green Homes. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith Publisher, 2003. Rybczynski, Witold. Home A Short History of an Idea. New York: Viking Penguin Inc., 1986. Schoenauer, Norbert. 6,000 Years of Housing. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2000. Smith, Lawrence B. Research Monograph No. 2: Housing in Canada: Market Structure and Policy Performance. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1971. Shadbolt, Douglas. Ron Thorn The Shaping of an Architectt. Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre, 1995. Stickley, Gustav. More Craftsman Houses. New York: The Craftsman Publishing Co., 1909. Taylor, Lisa, ed. Housing: Symbol, Structure, Site. New York: Rizzoli, 1990. Tremblay, Kenneth R. and Don A. Dillman. Beyond the American Housing Dream: Accommodation to the 1980's. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1983. Tyner, Janna. The Better Housing Scheme Bungalow in 1920 Vancouver: Wedding Economy and Aesthetics in the Craftsman Model. University of British Columbia, MASA Thesis, 1995. Venturi Scott Brown & Associates. On Houses and Housing. London, Saint-Martin's Press, 1992. Wade, Jill. Houses for all: the struggle for social housing in Vancouver, 1919-1950. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1994. Ward, W. Peter. A History of Domestic Space: privacy and the Canadian home. Vancouver: UBC Press, 1999. 153 Wilson, Henry L. The Bungalow Book. 1980. Windsor-Liscombe, Rhodri. The New Spirit: Modern Architecture in Vancouver, 1938-1963. Montreal: Centre Canadien d'Architecture; Vancouver: Douglas & Mclntyre, 1997. Wright, Gwendolyn. Building the Dream: a Social History of Housing in America. Pantheon Books, 1981. Wyman, Max (ed). Vancouver Forum Old Powers, New Forces. Vancouver, Douglas & Mclntyre, 1992. 154 Other Sources Arena, Journal of Architectural Association British Columbia Archives Canadian Architect vol. 5#9 sept 60 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Chatelaine City of Vancouver Archives City of Vancouver Planning Department House and Home Ladies Home Journal Langley Advance News National Post Pacific National Exhibition Archives Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver Statistics Canada Vancouver Courier Vancouver Province Vancouver Sun Western Living Worldwatch 155 Interviews Auer, Renee. Membership Services Coordinator, Greater Vancouver Home Builder's Association. 17 November, 2004. Balcom, Susan. Former Homes Editor, Vancouver Sun. 2003 Barbosa, Anne. Prize Home Manager, Pacific National Exhibition. 23 November, 2004. 01 December, 2004. Beedie, Keith. President, The Beedie Group. 10 December, 2003. Boldt, James. Planner, City of Vancouver. 08, 18, 22 November 2004. Burton, Wendy. Assistant Director of Production, Pacific National Exhibition. 23 November, 2004. Dalfo, Maxine. Present owner of 1934 Model Bungalow. 25 November, 2004. Dixon, Graham. Former President, Pan-abode International Limited. 03 November, 2004. Ernest, Michael. Director of Professional Services, Architectural Institute of British Columbia. 19 November, 2004. Faliszewski, Tom. Britco Housing Manager. 08 December, 2004. Holman, Margaret. Customer Support Representative, Pan-abode International Limited. 01 November, 2004. Hostetter, Elizabeth. Housing Information Analyst. Canadian Housing Information Centre. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 22 November, 2004. Leyshon, Debie. Director of Production, Pacific National Exhibition. 23 November, 2004. Luxton, Donald. Director Heritage Vancouver. 29 October, 2004. McAfee, Anne. Director of Planning, City of Vancouver. 02 November, 2004. Quigley, Steve. Former employee of The Thorn Partnership. 22 March, 2004. 156 A P P E N D I X In the appendix, the P N E Pr ize H o m e s are l isted i n chronologica l order w i th the f o l l o w i n g information, i f k n o w n : photograph, year, address (after leaving E x h i b i t i o n grounds), architect or designer, contractor, square footage and cost o f construction. = 1 9 3 4 @ 2812 Dundas, V a n c o u v e r H . Cul lerne , A r c h . V L C 950 sq. ft. $3,000. 1952 @ 7807 Fraser, V a n c o u v e r G . D i x o n , Des. Stolberg 1150 sq. ft. 1953 Greenal l Bros . 1954 Greenal l Bros . 1955 @ 1088 Ca lve rha l l , Nor th V a n G . D i x o n , Des. Panabode $15,000. 1956 $11,000 157 .1957 @ 6517 Lougheed , Burnaby G . D i x o n , Des. Panabode 1465 sq. ft. 1958 @ 6527 Lougheed , Burnaby G . D i x o n , Des. Panabode @ M a h o n , Burnaby Beedie , Des. Beedie 961 @ W i l l o w s , Burnaby Beedie , Des. Beedie 1962 @ W i l l o w s , Burnaby Beedie , Des. Beedie 1800 sq.f t . $13,000. 11963 @ 7551 Chutter, Burnaby Beedie , Des. Beedie 1836 sq.f t . $14,900. 158 jjjj 1964 @ 7580 Kraft , Burnaby 1850 sq.ft . 1965 @ 7782 K e r r y w o o d , Burnaby 1836 sq. ft. Beedie , Des. Beedie 1966 @ K e n t w o o d , Burnaby 2160 sq. ft. 1967 $50,000. 1968 $50,000. • 1969 $19,800. 1970 @ Dalebright , Burnaby Dueck , Des. Dueck Q Bui lders Burger $55,000. ( inc l . land) 1971 @ 3175 Ca rd ina l , Burnaby 2303 sq. ft. $32,000. Sure lock H o m e s 159 1972 @ 7515 Greenwood , Burnaby 1696 sq. ft. 1973 @ 3030 Greenwood , Burnaby 1700 sq. ft. Ar t ec , Des. Ar t ec M e r l i n , Des. 1974 @ C o q u i t l a m 2000 sq. ft. i«1975 @ M u n d y Park, C o q u i t l a m 2000 sq. ft. M e r l i n , Des. R e i c h Roper , Des. R e i c h 1976 @ 1 3 8 4 Havers ley , C o q u i t l a m Ph i l ip s Barratt, Des. Be l ca r 1600 sq. ft. 5,T- -1977 @ Havers ley , C o q u i t l a m 1875 sq.f t . B C I T , Des. O m e g a 1978 @ 11371 136 Street, Surrey K e n Poon , A r c h . O m e g a 1900 sq. ft. $150,000. 1979 @ 7477 Lawrence , Burnaby Novaspec , Des. Novaspec 2300 sq. ft. $150,000. 1980 @ Lawrence , Burnaby Ha l lmark , Des. H a l l m a r k 3000 sq. ft. $200,000. 160 1981 @ 2324 129B, Whi t e R o c k R o n Thorn , A r c h . Batex 4000 sq. ft. $400,000. 1982 @ 16080 13 t h , Wh i t e R o c k Dover te l , Des. Dover te l 2500 sq. ft. $250,000. 1983 @ 15955 19 t h , W h i t e R o c k E a r l Pont, A r c h . Westr idge 1964 sq.ft . $250,000. 1984 @ 10430 Fraser G l e n , Surrey D . M a n n i n g , A r c h . D o m i n i o n 1950 sq. ft. 1985 @ 10523, Fraser G l e n , Surrey D o m i n i o n , Des. D o m i n i o n 2000 sq. ft. 11986 @ 600 Clearwater , C o q u i t l a m Dover te l , Des. Dover te l 2300 sq. ft. 1987 @ Fraser G l e n , Surrey 1987 sq. ft. 1988 @ 10658 G l e n w o o d , Surrey 1939 sq.ft . Jennish, Des. G V H B A G V H B A 161 1989 @ 16749 Beech wood , Surrey Select Homes , Des. G V H B A 1949 sq. ft. 1990 @ 14020, 86 t h , Surrey 2300 sq. ft. B r i t co , Des. B r i t c o —=1991 @ 85a and 144 Street, Surrey R a y m o n d C h i n g , A r c h . 2100 sq. ft. 1992 @ 1811 G o l f C l u b D r i v e , Tsawwassen C . Moorehead , A r c h 1800 sq.f t . 1993 @ M a p l e R idge 2648 sq. f t 1994 @ Keats Island 1992 sq. ft. Snider ' s , Des. G V H B A L i n d a l , Des. Legacy Western $450,000. I 1995 @ 5070 B e e c h w o o d , Sechelt W i e d e m a n , A r c h . / L i n d a l Legacy Western 2332 sq. ft. 1996 @ 4736 Tamarack , Sechelt Wiedeman , A r c h . / L i n d a l Legacy Western 3000 sq. ft. $400,000. 1997 @ 4247 Orca , Pender Harbour B o l d W i n g , A r c h . Stevenson 2900 sq. ft. 162 11998 @ Pender Harbour /Map le R idge R a y Bouter , Des. Radisson H o m e s 2855 sq. ft. 1999 @ 4226 Johnston Heights , Pender Harbour Radisson H o m e s 4100 sq. f t $400,000. 2 0 0 0 @ 13535 A l l e n , Pender Harbour 3727 sq. ft. Radisson H o m e s 1001 @ 13543 A l l e n , Pender Harbour Stevenson, Des. Cast le R o c k 3000 sq. ft. 2002 @ 13528 A l l e n , Pender Harbour 3000 sq. ft. 003 @ C o w a n Point Road , B o w e n Island 3000 sq. ft. • 2 0 0 4 @ Gibsons 3000 sq. ft. $700,000. Br i t co , Des. B r i t c o Br i t co , Des. B r i t c o B r i t c o , Des. B r i t c o 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0091966/manifest

Comment

Related Items