CITY BRIEFS: On Dwarfing A Sugar Baron’s Heritage Mansion With Development Folly

by Ellen Johnston | Last December I wrote an article that looked into the origins of Vancouver street names, focusing on the “who” and the “where” that have defined us as a city. But what I neglected to mention is that there are more to street names than the names themselves. There’s what comes after, whether it be “street” or “avenue” or “lane” or that most of elusive of thoroughfares, the “mews”. I recently found myself researching the controversial Shannon Mews development in south Vancouver, and before I could get too far, I couldn’t help but ask “what the hell is a mews?” There’s something about the word; unlike “street” or “avenue”, it just rings of affectation, of pretension, of something anglophilic or quaint, belonging to the same family as fake thatched cottages or ye olde Christmas shoppes, something found on southern Vancouver Island. I’m not downplaying oddball naming or anything (in general I approve of nomenclatural diversity, be it anglophilic or not), but the word “mews” just seems so out of place in our forward looking city of steel and glass, born of the jagged mountains and the rough and tumble philosophy of the Canadian west.

But Shannon Mews is not without precedent. Afterall, one of Vancouver’s most unusual (and oldest) streets, Gaoler’s Mews, lies right in the heart of our most historic district, Gastown. While it, too, may have been something of an affectation, a name given by a homesick Englishmnn to a street far rom Blighty (Gassy Jack was an English immigrant), Gaoler’s Mews seems consistent with the times. Or at least it seemed plausibly so, until I looked again at Elizabeth Walker’s Street Names of Vancouver and discovered that Gaoler’s Mews was not given its name until 1972!

So what is a mews? Traditionally, it’s a cobbled street, often a dead end, with two rows of terraced (linked) cottages or stables facing each other. And yes, it’s an English thing, and an old one at that. The word mews itself comes from falconry, of all things. A mews was a place where Royal Hawks shedded their feathers (mewed, or in modern English, “moulted”). Over time, the purpose of the mews shifted to the stabling of horses, and then much much later to the housing of people, often servants. While neither hawks nor horses abound in Gastown these days, and it may not be the original name of the street, Gaoler’s Mews still seems to fit much of the criteria for what a mews should be — while it’s not exactly cobbled, it’s not paved either. Bricks line the street. It’s a dead end, too. And for those who are unfamiliar with the English spelling of “gaol”, this was, indeed, the location of the city’s first jail. And it’s quite easy to imagine that this little street having housed the city jailer’s horses once upon a time. After all, Vancouver’s paddy wagons weren’t always motorized. So while Gaoler’s Mews may be an affectation in its own right, perhaps even (like the steam clock) an attempt to lure tourists with its olde-fashionedness to buy made-in-China knick-knackery, at least it’s pretty accurate as a historical and physical describer of the street. Most true mews were never actually named as such. They simply were what they were.

As it turns out, the word “mews” is more common in Vancouver real estate jargon than I ever would have imagined. Just type “mews” and “Vancouver” into a google search, and multiple developments come up: one in UBC’s Westbrook Village (known only as The Mews), another in Yaletown (on a street called Aquarius Muse. Who knew?), another near Granville and 52nd (Granville Mews, which claims on its website to be in “South Granville”) and another at Kingsway and King Edward (Cedar Cottage Mews anyone?). While some of these developments have built thoroughfares that actually sort of fit the previous description, they come off as disingenuous when you consider the age we live in, the money being made and the demographics of many of the sellers and the buyers. Not that I’m against density or nostalgia or the two put together, but the abundance of mewses in Vancouver seems to be some sort of modern urban equivalent of that old adage that says “Suburbs are places where they cut down the trees and name the streets after them.” If and whenever mews originally became living quarters, it was house by house, block by block, scattered around English cities to create some of the most unique and charming dwelling imaginable. If anything, the modern Vancouver equivalent would the laneway house, a redeveloped modern stable of sorts, and a mews itself would be a laneway where several individual laneway houses face each other. These condo developments, however charming the lifestyles they offer might be, simply don’t fit the same bill.

Which brings me back to Shannon Mews, because unbeknownst to me, and probably to most Vancouverites, it has exceptional heritage value on site. I have probably passed Granville and 57th a million times in my life. Ok, maybe not a million, but you get the point. Anyone who spent their childhood shuttling around metro Vancouver for soccer games or hockey tournaments or went to the airport pre-Canada Line has traversed this stretch of Granville Street a lot. It’s a pretty non-descript location, surrounded mostly by very large houses with very large hedges. It’s somewhere on the invisible boundary of Oakridge and Marpole and Kerrisdale, none of which can really be described as hotspots in the city of Vancouver. But it has two unique features. Firstly, the “mews” part, which is actually an Arthur Erickson-designed infill townhouse development (listed last year on Heritage Vancouver’s top ten list of endangered sites), and secondly, a forty room mansion built in the Beaux-Arts style that lies at the centre of the “Shannon Estate”. Say what? I didn’t even know we had estates in Vancouver!

The house was built by B.T. Rogers, Vancouver’s original sugar baron. After living in the West End for awhile, he decided in 1910 to buy ten acres in what was then the country, in order to build the largest house west of Toronto. Construction was inevitably delayed by the war, the economy and Rogers’ own untimely death, but his wife finally finished the building in 1925. The man who lived in it after her remained there until 1965, at which point it was bought by Peter Wall (of the Wall Centre), who hired Arthur Erickson to redevelop it, a move that resulted in 162 suites in two storey buildings. Despite being on Heritage Vancouver’s endangered list, City Council passed a motion last July to allow Erickson’s project to be replaced by a 706 suite one (though 891 were originally planned), with two tall towers (down to 9 floors from 14) and several mid-rise buildings scattered throughout the site. Mercifully, the mansion, coach and gate house will remain intact, as will some of the landscaping.

Unsurprisingly, in an area where density is often considered a dirty word, the neighbours are up in arms. It’s a tough nut to crack actually, because it could be argued that there is heritage in both the original and the Erickson site. This is the same city council that allowed for the destruction of amazing Pantages Theatre, remember. They don’t necessarily have the best judgement on these things, no matter how much a building might be in a state of disrepair. And while mid-rise density is exactly what this city needs more of, I don’t know if building it in a place with essentially no where to walk to and relatively poor transit service is a good first step. It seems, perhaps, like a much better move for the Cambie corridor, which remains shockingly low density, despite the success of the Canada Line. But whatever your opinion on the project is, it brings one piece of news that is absolutely fantastic for all Vancouverites: they’re opening up the site for public viewing. For those of us who had no idea that there was a Beaux-Arts mansion there, this is a chance to visit a truly unique piece of Vancouver architectural history. Whether it’s out of place in its glossy new high density context, we’ll just have to see.

Perhaps instead it will be a vision of cooperation to come between new and old as the city takes each precarious step forward in densifying outside the downtown core. Let’s just hope that they put a moratorium on the inaccurate employment of the word “mews”. If we’re going to go with quirky and charming, let’s at least bring on some more Leg-in-Boot squares. Somehow it just seems more fitting.

images via


Ellen Johnston considers herself a wanderer, whether tramping through the rain-soaked streets of Vancouver in an attempt to pry loose the layers of our urban fabric, couch-surfing across America, or getting lost in the souks of Marrakech. Since that is not a full time gig, she fills her days with music studies, writing, occasionally running her own cookie company Cookie Elf, and most recently studying Spanish in Mexico City. She grew up in Vancouver, attended university in Philly and London, and has now hopped to New York City for awhile, though Vancouver will always be home.


There are 9 comments

  1. Thanks for this – very interesting!

    When will the estate be open for public viewing? How do we find out more information?

  2. Yes, please post more info on when it will be open to the public if you have it! I’ve always wanted to take a look at the mansion hidden behind those big hedges.

  3. The mansion itself has actually been split into private residences. I knew someone who lived in one of them and it was absolutely beautiful – high ceilings, crown mouldings and a lovely balcony overlooking the fountain. The downstairs ballroom (which you can actually see in one of the scenes in i-robot as Will Smith runs through it and it is destroyed via CGI) is not one of the apartments and you could probably check that out if you casually moseyed by it.

  4. Exactly how is Granville street not transit friendly? Newsflash there are only two train lines in the entire city and development is planned all the way along both of them. Regarding cambie corridor please see oakridge development plans or marine landing etc. Just because you want shops directly outside your door doesn’t meen everyone else does. I love how everyone complains about property prices and poor density in the city and then whine about it when it comes about. This place was run down on many acres exactly where this city needs to develop. I can’t wait to read your reaction when developers carve up the rcmp property.
    Less uneducated opinion and more facts and history please.

  5. Holy shit, 10B. I started thinking you had a point at first and then it quickly became evident from your writing style that you are in fact a massive douchebag who makes little sense. Read what you wrote again and try not to barf as I nearly did.

  6. Granville St is not transit friendly in South Vancouver, where this development is occuring. Since the arrival of the Canada Line, 98 B-lines have stopped running on Granville. That means no more express buses, which are especially useful to people looking to shuttle long distances, as they are required to in order to get downtown from South Van. That also means there’s only one bus option, the number 10, which is not only a local service, but can require 20-30 minute wait times in the evening. It’s not impossible, but it’s not amenable either.

    As for your “newsflash”, you are incorrect. There are actually THREE rapid transit train lines in the city: Canada, Expo and Millenium. This is VERY basic knowledge. Yes, it’s true that development is “planned” along the Canada line, but here we are almost three years later and very little has happened to change the nature of the street. Take a look at King Edward Station, for example. It’s hardly a hub of activity. As for “wanting shops outside my door”, I’m speaking about a heavily used transit corridor, not the countryside. For this transit corridor to truly succeed it should be a place where there is evidence of life. That means more people, more public spaces, and god-forbid, more “shops”. For Vancouver to keep up with growth, for there to be any chance of affordability and for simple quality of life, densifying our transit corridors is absolutely essential.

    As for the Millenium line, it was built over ten years ago, and almost no changes to the urban landscape have occured around it (in the city of Vancouver). It’s still a sea of single family homes. Same with the Expo Line, which is over 25 years old. The only serious impact it has made is in the area around Joyce Station. But that is ONE station. Take a look at Burnaby and the way it has taken advantage of its skytrain stations. Vancouver looks pretty pathetic by comparison. Of course it’s easier to build transit hubs in Burnaby, where much of the land built upon was formerly industrial. But that is another matter altogether…

    As for your statement “I love how everyone complains about property prices and poor density in the city and then whine about it when it comes about”, I’m rather baffled…and not only by the lack of “s” in “whine”. This article is not anti-density at all. It is about the fine balance between historical preservation and densification.

    I did question if this development was the right “first step” for a much needed increase in mid-rise density. I said this not because I oppose density, but because Cambie should be ground zero for this sort of thing. One of the biggest complaints people have had about the Shannon Mews development is that it will increase car traffic, because there will be so many more dwellings there. If such a development were built on a skytrain line, this simply would not be the same problem. People who live on the southern stretch of Granville are simply more likely to drive, whether they live in a mansion or in a tiny apartment. There are few places to walk to, and as mentioned before, transit is not ideal.

    As for me being uneducated, I suggest you look at a transit map in order to learn how many rapid transit lines there are in this city, and also consider the fact that your prose is riddled with spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors before you make such accusations.

  7. As a neighbour and frequent visitor of the property I love talking about this place. First of all, anyone who wants to go to the property go now before construction starts. You can walk through the property without being disturbed and go into the mansion to poke around. It is cool and the gardens are special.
    The neighbours were not against the development, it is the size. We wanted something that fit more into the surroundings with maybe 500 units not 800. Rememebr there is a huge development going on down the street at 70th & Granville, too much too fast. The plan is to bring the main floor of the house back to it’s original state, build a public park ( I love it, nobody asked for a park so now the taxpayer is on the hook for a park while Wall gets his development) and preserve as much of the original gardens as they can.
    I learned an important lesson during the planning process….locals have no say. We are taxpayers trying to preserve part of the neighbourhood without trying to disrupt the economic realities of the city, there was no real compromise on this for Wall. I agree, watch I-Robot it is fun to watch a robot backhoe destroy the mansion. Public transportation is OK, eventually there will be a canad line stop at 57th and Cambie. 57th is already like a highway so it will only get worse. Interesting times in the city.

  8. I just drove by this property and for the first time can see the impressive mansion because sadly, all of the trees to the east of it have been mowed down due to the redevelopment. Thanks for this information – I’m trying to read up as much as I can on this estate. What a fascinating history!

    And to “Cheffrey” – speaking of “massive douchebags”…