What do you think?
Rate this book
Stan Douglas: Every Building on 100 West Hastings
The 100 block of Vancouver’s West Hastings Street is the gateway to one of the most contested and controversial inner-city neighborhoods in North America—Vancouver’s infamous and impoverished downtown eastside. Using the work of one of the art world’s most celebrated visual artists—Stan Douglas—the book unravels the dynamics of history and sociology, combined with photography and art, to create a compelling and visually arresting document that informs our understanding of what makes a neighborhood. The book is based on a monumental-sized print of 100 West Hastings by Douglas, who photographed each building and composited the individual prints to assume a fantastic, impossible perspective. The print is reproduced in the book as a removable full-color poster.
- GenresNonfictionPhotography
120 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2003
2 people are currently reading
21 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
January 8, 2021
I love the idea of this book, and I stan Arsenal Pulp Press for publishing it.
This book comes together around the focal point of a single piece of art: Stan Douglas' "Every Building on 100 W Hastings" - a composite of photos of the north facing block of 100 W Hastings. The art is stunning, an a miniature is included (folded into 3 and inserted in the back pocket flap of the book).
The actual book is comprised of foreword, acknowledgements, introduction and 3 articles:
1) Sommers and Blomley's "The worst block in Vancouver" - a history of the downtown east side / skid row, which traces back to the early 20th century and references:
2) Smith and Derksen's "Urban Regeneration: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy" - provides an overview of gentrification's development across the globe, with Vancouver at the centre of the article's evidence and analysis, and a thesis that gentrification has gone from an intra-community neighbourhood occurrence to a globally influenced policy that is implemented regionally, state-wide and even internationally,
3) Denise Blake Oleksijczuk's "Haunted Spaces" - a close reading of Douglas' "Every Building on 100 W Hastings" (2001) that applies art theory to support the thesis that "the luminous, expansive photograph, rich in colour and texture, allows observers a chance to reconsider their relationship to this space and, by extension to the socially undervalued. It engages spectators in an active rather than passive form of looking, which may, in turn, also involve us in a process of idealisation crucial to the act of identifying with others." (To which I'm like, it's a stretch for me but go off)
The essays are punched up with gorgeous historical and contemporary photos of Vancouver.
Both Sommers + Blomley, and Smith and Derksen, refer to gentrification using terms of colonisation. A thesis I have seen asserted and well supported by Indigenous academics, knowledge holders, and activists. And yet, in both of these articles, despite including a history of the neighbourhood and much talk of displacement, colonial occupation of Vancouver was never so much as alluded to, let alone adequately explored. The cynic in me thinks that maybe giving a mandatory shout out to colonialism's effects wasn't yet academically de rigueur in ~2001 when these articles were written. But mostly I think colonial occupation is an incredibly pertinent factor in the scope of both these articles, and its exclusion leaves a gaping hole in the analysis.
Of those two articles, Smith and Derksen's were more to my taste; I was very fascinated to read about gentrification, I think their theses were sufficiently supported, and the article left me feeling existentially depressed. Particularly because the article was written during a clash between residents and developers about the fate of the derelict Woodward's building. The theory of the article outlines the future awaiting the site, and includes the throwaway rhetorical question:
Additionally, in Smith and Derksen they make reference to a DTES housing policy (the City of Vancouver's "Downtown East Side Revitalization Program") which increased housing units (mostly overpriced condos) by 51% between 1991 and 1996, but affordable Single Room Occupancy dwellings decreased by 242 units over the same 5 years. In fact, between 1970 and 1997, SROs declined by 6300 units, but were only replaced by 4,000 new social housing units. I can't help but think about how everyone of a certain age in Metro Vancouver thinks every homeless person is a former Riverview patient, and how this statistic about the loss of affordable housing units from the same time period points to another, simpler cause for homelessness: lack of affordable homes. To be clear: the closing of large centralised mental health facilities for diffuse unfunded or never launched resources smattered across a region absolutely creates the conditions for homelessness and displacement. But so does taking away a fuck ton of housing in the name of "urban regeneration". And both these policies (urban regeneration and closing large centralised healthcare facilities) are neoliberal policies.
Final notes about Smith and Derksen: their article references neoliberal tactics (of particular interest to me was the highlighting of how neoliberal language creates specific problems with specific solutions, this is something I have been mulling over for years, ever since I saw a mayor on an American news station begging the President to drop fire retardant on forests because it was "the most obvious answer" to forest fires. If all of your science funding is for the military, all of your answers are going to be militaristic. One could argue the most obvious solution to forest fires is to stop burning fossils fuels. I DIGRESS), trace policing and authoritarianism's important role in gentrification, and examine the racist hypocrisy and classism inherent in policies that target a working class neighbourhood for the "resettlement" of the professional suburban class to "rebalance" the city's demographics.
I liked Oleksijczuk's "Haunted Spaces", but I was also the least comfortable with this treatise out of the 3 articles. IDK shit about art theory or history, so even the theses of the sources, pulled in to support the arguments, felt like a stretch to me. The article does mention Indigeneity, so it clears that super low bar that tripped the 2 preceding articles. Oleksijczuk finds a way to talk about the Missing and Murdered sex workers who were preyed on by a serial killer, unfettered by police for decades, which I think is absolutely crucial in a book about this neighbourhood.
Ultimately, my biggest personal hurdle for the book is that I wish it were more current: the articles are almost 20 years old now, and I can't even wish I'd found it sooner because no way I would've been this into a book like this in 2012. I used to be cool*.
*I did not.
This book comes together around the focal point of a single piece of art: Stan Douglas' "Every Building on 100 W Hastings" - a composite of photos of the north facing block of 100 W Hastings. The art is stunning, an a miniature is included (folded into 3 and inserted in the back pocket flap of the book).
The actual book is comprised of foreword, acknowledgements, introduction and 3 articles:
1) Sommers and Blomley's "The worst block in Vancouver" - a history of the downtown east side / skid row, which traces back to the early 20th century and references:
2) Smith and Derksen's "Urban Regeneration: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy" - provides an overview of gentrification's development across the globe, with Vancouver at the centre of the article's evidence and analysis, and a thesis that gentrification has gone from an intra-community neighbourhood occurrence to a globally influenced policy that is implemented regionally, state-wide and even internationally,
3) Denise Blake Oleksijczuk's "Haunted Spaces" - a close reading of Douglas' "Every Building on 100 W Hastings" (2001) that applies art theory to support the thesis that "the luminous, expansive photograph, rich in colour and texture, allows observers a chance to reconsider their relationship to this space and, by extension to the socially undervalued. It engages spectators in an active rather than passive form of looking, which may, in turn, also involve us in a process of idealisation crucial to the act of identifying with others." (To which I'm like, it's a stretch for me but go off)
The essays are punched up with gorgeous historical and contemporary photos of Vancouver.
Both Sommers + Blomley, and Smith and Derksen, refer to gentrification using terms of colonisation. A thesis I have seen asserted and well supported by Indigenous academics, knowledge holders, and activists. And yet, in both of these articles, despite including a history of the neighbourhood and much talk of displacement, colonial occupation of Vancouver was never so much as alluded to, let alone adequately explored. The cynic in me thinks that maybe giving a mandatory shout out to colonialism's effects wasn't yet academically de rigueur in ~2001 when these articles were written. But mostly I think colonial occupation is an incredibly pertinent factor in the scope of both these articles, and its exclusion leaves a gaping hole in the analysis.
Of those two articles, Smith and Derksen's were more to my taste; I was very fascinated to read about gentrification, I think their theses were sufficiently supported, and the article left me feeling existentially depressed. Particularly because the article was written during a clash between residents and developers about the fate of the derelict Woodward's building. The theory of the article outlines the future awaiting the site, and includes the throwaway rhetorical question:
Will the Woodward's building become the Tompkins Square Park of Vancouver?Judging by what the apartments in the rebuilt Woodward's building go for, I think Smith and Derksen nailed it. There's also a paragraph devoted to the inflated cost of Mumbai real estate that felt upsettingly familiar to Vancouver's context.
Additionally, in Smith and Derksen they make reference to a DTES housing policy (the City of Vancouver's "Downtown East Side Revitalization Program") which increased housing units (mostly overpriced condos) by 51% between 1991 and 1996, but affordable Single Room Occupancy dwellings decreased by 242 units over the same 5 years. In fact, between 1970 and 1997, SROs declined by 6300 units, but were only replaced by 4,000 new social housing units. I can't help but think about how everyone of a certain age in Metro Vancouver thinks every homeless person is a former Riverview patient, and how this statistic about the loss of affordable housing units from the same time period points to another, simpler cause for homelessness: lack of affordable homes. To be clear: the closing of large centralised mental health facilities for diffuse unfunded or never launched resources smattered across a region absolutely creates the conditions for homelessness and displacement. But so does taking away a fuck ton of housing in the name of "urban regeneration". And both these policies (urban regeneration and closing large centralised healthcare facilities) are neoliberal policies.
Final notes about Smith and Derksen: their article references neoliberal tactics (of particular interest to me was the highlighting of how neoliberal language creates specific problems with specific solutions, this is something I have been mulling over for years, ever since I saw a mayor on an American news station begging the President to drop fire retardant on forests because it was "the most obvious answer" to forest fires. If all of your science funding is for the military, all of your answers are going to be militaristic. One could argue the most obvious solution to forest fires is to stop burning fossils fuels. I DIGRESS), trace policing and authoritarianism's important role in gentrification, and examine the racist hypocrisy and classism inherent in policies that target a working class neighbourhood for the "resettlement" of the professional suburban class to "rebalance" the city's demographics.
I liked Oleksijczuk's "Haunted Spaces", but I was also the least comfortable with this treatise out of the 3 articles. IDK shit about art theory or history, so even the theses of the sources, pulled in to support the arguments, felt like a stretch to me. The article does mention Indigeneity, so it clears that super low bar that tripped the 2 preceding articles. Oleksijczuk finds a way to talk about the Missing and Murdered sex workers who were preyed on by a serial killer, unfettered by police for decades, which I think is absolutely crucial in a book about this neighbourhood.
Ultimately, my biggest personal hurdle for the book is that I wish it were more current: the articles are almost 20 years old now, and I can't even wish I'd found it sooner because no way I would've been this into a book like this in 2012. I used to be cool*.
*I did not.
May 20, 2020
essential lore
August 16, 2014
Great perspectives and explanations of gentrification/regeneration of Vancouver.
January 18, 2016
an interesting read on some of the history of Vancouver's Downtown East Side & artistic review
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews