Swans | Victoria | Pandora Ave. at Store St.

Everyone refers to the Hudson District as the Hudson District, we have the Legislative Precinct, and Antique Row we all grew up with.

I think Lantern District is a fantastic name for the west Pandora area that's not really Chinatown, but sort of is, and it's in Old Town, but then it's kinda Chinatown, so something meeting both names half way works.

I think Lantern District is a fantastic name for the west Pandora area that's not really Chinatown, but sort of is, and it's in Old Town, but then it's kinda Chinatown, so something meeting both names half way works.

I'm just not sure 1 block (more or less) needs a special designation, but as was stated before it's about as likely to catch on as LoJo. Most people will probably refer to this area as "by Swan's", lower Pandora (LoPa?), maybe the "Janion District", or most likely "near the bridge".

Everyone refers to the Hudson District as the Hudson District, we have the Legislative Precinct, and Antique Row we all grew up with.

I think Lantern District is a fantastic name for the west Pandora area that's not really Chinatown, but sort of is, and it's in Old Town, but then it's kinda Chinatown, so something meeting both names half way works.

 

Most city 'districts' are more than 1 block though :-)

I think the scope of the district includes the 500-block of Pandora, the block of Store Street from Swift Street to Pandora Street, and Wharf Street from Pandora to Yates. That's far larger in size than the Hudson District, and encompasses quite a lot of land that's seeing this spike in development activity (595 Pandora, The Union, The Janion, Johnson Street Gateway, and eventually whatever is built between Mermaid Wharf and The Janion).

If you think about it, calling that area the Lantern District is no different than calling Dockside Green by name, or the Railyards by name, or Bayview, or Roundhouse, etc. People love to be able to identify with a very specific area or refer to very specific areas.

The TC article says they'd like the new operator to keep on the current employees.  Yikes, that might be part of the problem.

So does the Citified article!

So does the Citified article!

 

I never read Citified, my paperboy never delivers it on time it seems.

I think a shut down, paint job, cleaning and name change is going to be required for this reboot.

Maybe a big national operator will come in. We could use a Days Inn.

A couple of experienced local operators have passed on this property already. With 15 years of deferred investment, siphoning of all profits, and a severely damaged reputation, it would take a massive reworking of property and concept as a whole to be attractive. I hear the university is offering zero for renovations and the lease isn't long enough to make the multimillion dollar upgrades a worthy risk.

A couple of experienced local operators have passed on this property already. With 15 years of deferred investment, siphoning of all profits, and a severely damaged reputation, it would take a massive reworking of property and concept as a whole to be attractive. I hear the university is offering zero for renovations and the lease isn't long enough to make the multimillion dollar upgrades a worthy risk.

 

Ya, probably.  If the numbers worked, an operator like Strathcona Hotel might have some economies of scale to make it attractive.  They know how to run pubs, a hotel and a liquor store.

 

But it comes down to lease terms, no doubt.

Which makes it all the more likely a national hotel chain may step up. They'll have the cloud to negotiate a favourable lease once the pool of operators dries up.

 

My guess is it would take $1.5-million to full renovate the pub alone, plus more if they intend to rehash the exterior.

 

Is a stipulation of the partnership agreement an ongoing brewpub operation?

How could a national hotel chain run a hotel that has no parking?

^ See: New York

I hope this stays as a boutique hotel. I would be surprised if a national chain would want such a small property. And I think the name "Swans" should stay. It has a history. It's how the late Michael Williams used to describe his rethinking and redevelopment of the Buckerfield's warehouse building, turning an ugly duckling into a swan.

I disagree about the name. But also don't care. I stepped in there once. Thought it was gross with a lame menu and left. No desire to go back.

New signage in the windows is awful.

Agreed. "signage" awful. Sadly, signage a reflection of the food and service we recently experienced there. Used to be our favourite.....14 years ago.

It smacks of desperation.

I think they're trying to appeal to unsuspecting tourists.

No one I know has been there in the last few years - it's in need of a serious refresh.