what a stunning place. i hope the people fighting to save it win. some person(s) able to afford it should buy it from the destructive owners. it could be turned into a school, like some other iconic homes have been.

i totally agree ^^^

I think it's time to name and shame the people responsible, including the heathen architects who are willing to participate in the vandalism.
Whilst people are free to destroy beauty, there are other who appreciate it and can boycott the businesses of all concerned to make sure they don't have enough money to do it again...

If it was in the US you could easily landmark it, rezone the district and enact a demolition delay ordinance.

This is not a small, outdated house by any stretch of the imagination.

The owner should be banned from ever owning property - if I ran the universe!

Someone owns that property. I understand the arguments for preserving art of value to the public, but not at the cost of trampling all over someones rights, which you seem all too eager to do.

Wait a minute. We have a location that was nearly impossible to build on, within feet of a water area, but someone managed to throw enough money at it and built something. Something that was likely way to close to the water to begin with. On a site that didn't deserve to be built on. And we want to preserve this WHY? Because it's well designed? Because it is pretty?

The author of this article certainly makes their biased opinion known in their statement of 'wimpy gutless excuse' in reference to the city planner. And what of individual rights? What of property rights? What of the individuals right to decide "Fuck this, I'm tired of this use and I want a different house?" or "I'm sick of all these people coming here to look at my house, leave me alone!"

Why should your will be imposed on a private landowner for purely aesthetic purposes?

I'm willing to bet that if someone wanted to build on such a property like this now, people would be all over them about building in unsuitable locations and being too close to water. But because it looks pretty, we want to trump the rights of the landowner.

Damn..... hypocritical.

Although I agree that this is a beautiful house, and by no means should be demolished, I'm rather taken aback by the commentary.

"In the end, this is private property we're talking about,so we're really looking to encourage conservation by the tools that are available to us."

I completely agree with Stephen Mikicich especially when he's doing exactly what he is supposed to, act within the law and let people live freely. If the laws are flawed then that's something to be fixed but calling him gutless is disingenuous. I caution you as you willingly concede your private property rights to the powers that be. The door swings both ways.

And "if you're waiting for the government to solve your problems then you have bigger problems than you thought you did."

I don't know about this one. Isn't this what makes countries and cities great? People go to Europe in droves because they have HISTORY and architecture, that they preserve. There are trees that you can't cut down where I live in London, because they preserve the character and beauty of the community. And don't even think about it when it comes to a "listed" building.

There are laws that protect great works of architecture and there should be more of them in the US or the US will end up with a bunch of Big Box buildings and parking lots for it's great stake in history.

America has so little "history" of it's own. Why can't we begin to create and preserve one unique to America with these great mid-century buildings. I think this is an idea espoused by Frank Lloyd Wright and shared by many Americans.

It's got to start somewhere.

Ok, I just realized it was Canada we were talking about here, but my sentiments are the same.

To those of you supporting the, "In the end, this is private property we're talking about,so we're really looking to encourage conservation by the tools that are available to us." let me just note that Arthur Erickson is a world renowned architect who was literally the pioneer in this form of architecture. This building is not only beautiful but has significant cultural and historical importance to both academic and interpretive architecture. To suggest that demolishing this building is acceptable is like suggesting you would be right in painting a Salvador Dali piece white and putting your portrait on it.

Here's the deal. The house is owned by Shiraz Lalji (and his 2 brothers). Lalji is principal investor in an outfit called Larco Investments and owner of Hotspur Resorts. In addition to owning shopping malls and hotels, Hotspur is now taking over the Regent Las Vegas, fired everyone, and will soon reopen as a Marriott. But here's the catch, Marriott won't actually own it because the Marriott family is Mormon and can't own gambling operations, so they'll just operate the hotel, using their name recognition to drive business to it. Nice little ethical/religious loophole for them, eh?

This is the kind of slime we're dealing with here folks. Lalji has also not maintained the house at all since purchasing it 1988. This tactic is often used to "get rid" of buildings that might encounter resistance in doing so. How many mega rich folks would leave a "Monet" to rott in a musty basement. They do not view it as art, merely a conquest.

But it is art, and a national architectural treasure. I believe in property rights too, but where does it stop folks? I couldn't (and wouldn't) stop a fire station from being built 150 yards from my house because it is needed by the community -- for the greater good. Sucks for me but I'm trying to make it work by rezoning to mixed use.

You would think that the zoning laws there would have changed over the years to prevent rebuilding in such an environmental sensitive, seismically active, rock fall zone. You'd also think they could work out something where they restore it, take a huge write-off, then profit by renting this treasure out to other (more cultured, obviously) rich folks. "Come and be pampered in this architectural diamond, with unparalleled views !!" or something like that.

Always the extremes, rarely a workable compromise. ... from "They should be shot !" to "Then YOU should lose all of YOUR rights !". It is this very type of thing makes me feel that we are doomed, and I'm an optimist, sheesh !

"Pave paradise and put up a parking lot" or "Call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye"

I can't believe we are trying to save something that violates so many rules of good environmental stewardship. What kind of insulative properties do glass walls have? What does it take to heat this monster in the winter?
Are we suppose to pretend that such egregious violations of environmentally-sound building are is OK because it is pretty or has a semi-famous architect?

Yes, obviously personal and property rights are important, but as someone else has already pointed out, regulations on what private owners can do to their historically significant homes are nothing new or novel, particularly in parts of Europe (I'm in Amsterdam, and while the quirks of canal houses are a constant source of annoyance for many owners, that annoyance is far outweighed by the communal pride in maintaining the character of the city).

scott says:
"I can't believe we are trying to save something that violates so many rules of good environmental stewardship. What kind of insulative properties do glass walls have? What does it take to heat this monster in the winter?"

Many 'glass houses' are incredibly eco-friendly. They absorb the heat provided by natural signlight during the day and the house remains insulated throughout the night, by simply drawing shades, ultimately saving on both heating and cooling costs. I don't know the particulars of the Graham house, but I definitely wouldn't be so quick to judge it as an eco-unfriendly 'monster' at all.

Art or not (and it is a beautiful piece at that), demolition is ridiculous. At least relocate or reuse. We have every right to not appreciate art, but you can't go junking up the landfills and use vigin materials in the process, those are things we don't own alone, including the view.

I am a vancouver resident and design student, who is currently being taught by one of Ericksons' former employees in my 3rd yr at design school. My final project for this year is using one of his public buildings, which has just been granted historical preservation status by the City of Vancouver.
Erickson is the architect that has put Vancouver on the map, and is our great modernist architect. The house was built many years ago and i think the comments placed regarding heating etc due to all windows and location are valid had it been built in the last 10yrs, but it wasnt. One could say the same of Johnsons' Glass House, or van der Rohes' Farnsworth House, yet there is no intent to demolish them.
The point here is that buildings like this are the start of our history in Vancouver, as we are a young city and country. Ericksons' buildings have created a "West Coast Style" for British Columbia, and are structures that continually teach us to relate our structures to their sites, and to find inspiration from our natural resources and continue them into the interiors.
I understand that owners have rights etc. but when you buy into a property that holds a certain public status, you must be prepared for public interest and opinion if the integrity of it should be jeopardised.

I am a vancouver resident and design student, who is currently being taught by one of Ericksons' former employees in my 3rd yr at design school. My final project for this year is using one of his public buildings, which has just been granted historical preservation status by the City of Vancouver.
Erickson is the architect that has put Vancouver on the map, and is our great modernist architect. The house was built many years ago and i think the comments placed regarding heating etc due to all windows and location are valid had it been built in the last 10yrs, but it wasnt. One could say the same of Johnsons' Glass House, or van der Rohes' Farnsworth House, yet there is no intent to demolish them.
The point here is that buildings like this are the start of our history in Vancouver, as we are a young city and country. Ericksons' buildings have created a "West Coast Style" for British Columbia, and are structures that continually teach us to relate our structures to their sites, and to find inspiration from our natural resources and continue them into the interiors.
I understand that owners have rights etc. but when you buy into a property that holds a certain public status, you must be prepared for public interest and opinion if the integrity of it should be jeopardised.

I read with interest all the comments regarding my old home...and it was a great home! It was solar passive and it didn't take a lot to heat in the winter. It was part of nature, everywhere you looked there were plants or animals....ocean, and the duck pond always ever changing and full of life. It was a glass house set on a cliff next to a nature preserve....It was a privlege and an inspiration to have lived there and both my daughter and i have gone on to live in other places surrounded by animals.
When the house was sold to the present owner there were many changes.....there is nothing to preserve but pictures and memories. It is very sad but it's too late...What is there now is not what was. Perhaps a good project for me is to put together a book of what the house was in it's glory
when all the gardens were grown in...the ivy on the massive concrete wall that changed color in the seasons...it was truly a masterpiece!
Thankyou Arthur.....we were very lucky to have lived there.
Johni de Groot

i just came from ( getting kicked off ) the site and the house is coming down. the machinery was working and although i couldnt see it, the demolition permit has obviously gone through and they are wasting no time bringing it down. unbelievable that work and thought like that gets wiped away. especially by a family who is in the top 50 wealthiest families in canada. sad really.

Sorry guys, I have just heard that it is gone. A sad day for Canadian Architecture. We don't have many famous architects in Canada, let alone ones from Vancouver, so it is a shame to see a great example of a building that architecture students have studied for years in their education program. You can argue all you want regarding the issue of private property, but in essence, every piece of architecture in a way is private, so if we were to never designate heritage buildings, we would indeed have no history left in this country, of the little of it that already exists.

Today I visited the site of Erickson's former materspiece. To destroy it felt like an act of violence when considering the importance of this house to Canadian architecture. A unique west-cost style of house design was emodied in this piece of architecture. The Lalji familiy (the billionaire owners) obviously have no senstivity to concerns raised by the community about loosing this piece of local history. After looking at the pictures of the James House on the Internet and then standing overlooking the ruins of it today, it really felt like an act of violence to have this masterpiece demolished. One thing we can do to raise our voices against this act of stupidity and greed is to boycott shopping at Park Royal whenever we can, as the mall is owned by Larco Developments - a Lalji run business. Its a shame that unbridled desire for money by some new wealthy immirgants overides shared Canadian values - like protecting an architectural heirtage.