kcantor said:
^
i toured it roof to parkade some dozen or so years ago and, other than its basic bones, it was in pretty rough shape even then. It certainly wasn’t habitable, even as shelter space.

the bones, however (as well as the neighbourhoods whose cross-roads it occupies) certainly deserve a better fate than demolition.
Click to expand...
The problem with the bones (structure) being in such good shape, the cost to bring the electrical, mechanical, sprinkler and HVAC up to current code is not reasonable. Thus demolition is the way to go
 
Vacs said:
The problem with the bones (structure) being in such good shape, the cost to bring the electrical, mechanical, sprinkler and HVAC up to current code is not reasonable. Thus demolition is the way to go
Click to expand...
in general and on this one in particular we will have to agree to disagree. you don’t scrap your 5 year old car because it needs new tires, a battery, and recharging the a/c. if it’s accident and rust free - ie if it has good bones - it will run forever.

our penchant for demolition “because the cost to keep it is too high” cost us both the tegler building and its replacement. think about what that means.

it’s not the cost, it’s the lack of will and imagination. with more of both, we would still have warehouses in the warehouse district, the carnegie library, the old courthouse etc etc etc and we wouldn’t be moaning and complaining about what to do with all those surface parking lots.
 
I realize I may be putting words in your mouth, @kcantor, but I think comparing the old Remand Centre to the Tegler Building is a bit reaching if you ask me.
 
Gronk! said:
I realize I may be putting words in your mouth, @kcantor, but I think comparing the old Remand Centre to the Tegler Building is a bit reaching if you ask me.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's really the point. Whether we want to consider the old remand as architecturally significant or a blight for eyesight, we need to move away from this mindset of failing to maintain existing buildings and then immediately turning to demolition rather than repurposing/other viable options. Edmonton overall has a bizarre fascination with new and shiny while failing to prioritize what we already have.

It's both extremely wasteful and is going to continue to leave us with a deficit of interesting historical inventory.
 
Tropical said:
Through a lens of decolonization/reconciliation, I would like to see the building disappeared from the neighbourhood.
Click to expand...
My first instinct is to agree with you. But then I remember that the new remand is merely an "out of sight out of mind" continuation of the same abuse. Its the largest prison in Canada with nearly 2,000 inmates, the vast majority of which have not been convicted of a crime. Most of which are Indigenous. Having the rotting hulk of old remand to remind us of what we are still doing may be closer to the spirit of Truth and Reconciliation than demolishing it.
 
Vacs said:
The problem with the bones (structure) being in such good shape, the cost to bring the electrical, mechanical, sprinkler and HVAC up to current code is not reasonable. Thus demolition is the way to go
Click to expand...
I agree. A structure with a lot of concrete and small spaces is not easy to change or fix up.

If there was something particularly redeeming or wonderful about this building (ex. interesting historical facade), it might be worthwhile to keep, but in this case I see no reason to be sentimental about this or to hang on to it.

Having an empty unused, very difficult to adapt, building sitting around is not going to any good and may actually hold back more positive development of the area.
 
My hope with this redevelopment as well regardless of what it is, that it will treat the multi-use path with respect, as well as the to-be cleaned up pigeon bridge with the Stationlands development.
Have like, part of the building open up onto the MUP, maybe a little seating area or plaza or whatever, just so it feels like part of a connected piece of infrastructure.
Maybe a nice broad stepped plaza that connects the MUP down to 97 St creating a unique transition.

Maybe we could even go so far as to convert this part of the trail into a "pedestrian street"? For the moment it's nothing but a continuation of the existing MUP, but in the future it could make for a unique spot.
Eventually some of those parking lots could theoretically be ripe for developments of their own, so let's not pass up the opportunity.
 
kcantor said:
^
i toured it roof to parkade some dozen or so years ago and, other than its basic bones, it was in pretty rough shape even then. It certainly wasn’t habitable, even as shelter space.

the bones, however (as well as the neighbourhoods whose cross-roads it occupies) certainly deserve a better fate than demolition.
Click to expand...
From your professional and observational point of view, with the bone intact, would the cost be reasonable to renovate into living space for marginal income?
 
kcantor said:
in general and on this one in particular we will have to agree to disagree. you don’t scrap your 5 year old car because it needs new tires, a battery, and recharging the a/c. if it’s accident and rust free - ie if it has good bones - it will run forever.

our penchant for demolition “because the cost to keep it is too high” cost us both the tegler building and its replacement. think about what that means.

it’s not the cost, it’s the lack of will and imagination. with more of both, we would still have warehouses in the warehouse district, the carnegie library, the old courthouse etc etc etc and we wouldn’t be moaning and complaining about what to do with all those surface parking lots.
Click to expand...
The car analogy for the old remand center is terrible.

We are not talking about a historical building, where there is reason to keep it around because of its beautiful history. Its a building where the majority of its previous tenants have horrible memories.

The amount of scanning, saw cutting and coring of the building to turn it into something pleasant, is not reasonable for this particular building.

Demo it
 
It is not necessarily about historical preservation but pragmatism, environmental, financial prudence , and maintaining status quo on current density/connectivity
 
Clearshades said:
From your professional and observational point of view, with the bone intact, would the cost be reasonable to renovate into living space for marginal income?
Click to expand...
it would be competitive with anything else but there are some users where incomes are marginal and for whom the spaces would be spectacular and they wouldn’t trigger the same trauma potential as shelter spaces or supportive living might.

as one example, for artist live/work space the potential for the existing two story tall interior spaces would allow for units for sculptors to work on large pieces (supported by oversized elevators). those tall spaces would also allow dancers to practice (ballet and modern need spaces high enough for one partner to lift or “throw” the other. the horizontal/slit windows provide perfect light for painters.

there is a multi purpose auditorium that could be a black box theatre, there is service access and spaces that could be readily configured for food services and retail.

there is space that could be sound proofed and used for music rehearsal and/or recording.

it’s within walking distance of our major arts and entertainment facilities (employment) as well as macewan (education).

this could incorporate a permanent home for the edmonton sculpture project or include a home to “ihuman on steroids”.

all of the above are also compatible with market housing if t try they were part of a mixed use project and they would increase the desirability of market housing in the adjacent neighborhoods, something they all need, as they would be able to associate with trendy/chic (even if marginal income) neighbours.

i can see winspear and the aga and the citadel and the ram all participating by providing units for artists or musicians or presenters “in residence”…
 
Clearshades said:
It is not necessarily about historical preservation but pragmatism, environmental, financial prudence , and maintaining status quo on current density/connectivity
Click to expand...
It isn't necessarily pragmatic, if because of the layout and all the concrete, it takes more resources and money to transform it than it would to tear it down and build something new that would work better for whatever it would be used for. I believe ultimately something better can and should be built here and keeping what is there will be sub-optimal.
 
Vacs said:
The car analogy for the old remand center is terrible.

We are not talking about a historical building, where there is reason to keep it around because of its beautiful history. Its a building where the majority of its previous tenants have horrible memories.

The amount of scanning, saw cutting and coring of the building to turn it into something pleasant, is not reasonable for this particular building.

Demo it
Click to expand...
it might not be a perfect analogy but it’s certainly not terrible.

cars aren’t - or shouldn’t be - disposable items buildings aren’t - or shouldn’t be - either.

as for allowing them to be demolished simply because they’re not old, if we allow for their east demolition they never have the opportunity to become old.

it’s disingenuous to say the remand centre is no tegler building but in many respects it’s just as well suited to repurposing than the tegler was. and, for perspective, not only have we lost the tegler building to this approach, we’ve also lost the building that replaced the tegler building.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top