David A
Senior Member
Toronto and Montreal have generations of many successful large family businesses, like the Rogers and Bronfmans who are very rooted in their communities. Edmonton seems indifferent to keeping or attracting them.
|
|
|
- Thread starter IanO
- Start date
Glenco
Senior Member
A little bit of hyperbole don’t you think? Winspear, Muttart and the Robins centre at MU. Small potatoes compared to TO and Montreal but there again we are small potatoes.
Oilguy
Active Member
The pooles, the holes, Allards, etc. but as you point out of course we will have less, someone would have to do some sort of per Capita comparison. Chasing away/losing the Shaw’s kind of sucked but my feeling is as much as the laid blame on the city they were like a moth to the flame of the Calgary scene.
David A
Senior Member
I'm not denying there are some well off families here and I suppose you can survive on small potatoes, but not sure if you can really thrive.
As a city in a supposedly more ambitious part of the country there is no shortage of excuses for a lack of ambition here. Part of the problem is we don't realize the problem.
As a city in a supposedly more ambitious part of the country there is no shortage of excuses for a lack of ambition here. Part of the problem is we don't realize the problem.
Glenco
Senior Member
I will agree Edmontonians lack self belief. We seem to accept being second fiddle which is very disturbing. There were moments in the recent past when we wouldn’t accept no for an answer when Mandel was mayor other than that maybe Hawrelak?
constance_chlore
Senior Member
Is it really a question of keeping or attracting people? I don't know that Montreal did anything to retain the Bronfmans. If anything, you might say the opposite: Québec during the Grande Noirceur was not exactly the most favorable place for Jews, and then during the Révolution tranquille there was a huge flight of capital caused by fears of nationalism. But the Bronfmans stayed in large part out of a sense of rootedness and civic pride.
I don't really know whether Edmonton scores worse on this front (relative to its size) than other cities. Quebecers tend to think of Québec as being worse than English-speaking Canada, by which they mostly mean Toronto. But I will say that the sense of rootedness, or knowledge and appreciation of history, just doesn't seem to be there to the same degree in Edmonton.
David A
Senior Member
Yes, Montreal did its best to drive away many that didn't fit the prevailing vision, of course that was Toronto's gain and it eventually surpassed it. However, Montreal does still have the advantage of still being a fairly big city.
Until the late 1980's or early 1990's Edmonton was the major centre of Alberta and something similar happened here, we let that slip away although not as much through hostility as indifference.
Yes, it is probably harder to keep or attract successful people here than because we are smaller and have less history to keep them here, but that seems to have become the excuse not to really make the effort.
The Winspear Centre was great, but that was over 30 years ago and the benefactor was from the era when Edmonton was the major centre, not that much as significant has happened more recently.
Until the late 1980's or early 1990's Edmonton was the major centre of Alberta and something similar happened here, we let that slip away although not as much through hostility as indifference.
Yes, it is probably harder to keep or attract successful people here than because we are smaller and have less history to keep them here, but that seems to have become the excuse not to really make the effort.
The Winspear Centre was great, but that was over 30 years ago and the benefactor was from the era when Edmonton was the major centre, not that much as significant has happened more recently.
kcantor
Senior Member
If I was to look at the significant loss of historic structures in Edmonton over the past 60 years, I'd have a really hard time blaming "the current generation" for the current state of affairs. If previous generations hadn't almost completely abdicated their responsibilities in this area, we would have sufficient successful precedents to inspire the current generation.
The worst part from my perspective is that it was previous generations that allowed the demolition of the very best so that today for the most part we are forced to struggle to make sense of second and third rate examples by significance (with the rare exception of structures like the old RAM - which may not even be enough - and the original planetarium) and by condition.
David A
Senior Member
I don't think the current generation was responsible for what was lost in the past and yes it was significant. However, I don't sense as much interest in general in preserving what is left now than a decade or two ago.
Although I would like to be proved wrong on that.
Although I would like to be proved wrong on that.
archited
Senior Member
Edmonton is a much, much younger city than Montreal -- a frontier town that grew up/is growing up "over night". It is rife with trial-and-error. That is its beauty.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Architecture bracket exposes history at risk
This year's edition of the "Arch Madness" showdown for iconic Edmonton buildings will focus on properties at the highest risk of demolition, examining both what the city stands to lose and opportunities for renewal.
edmonton.taproot.news
Rose said he hopes more people will become invested in the future of these buildings. Some bracket members have legal protections, but those protections are fallible, Rose said. For example, the Princess is a provincial historic resource and is listed on the register of municipal historic resources (which differs from the unprotected properties on the city’s inventory of historic resources). And yet, in Rose’s estimation, the Princess is at the greatest risk for demolition of the entire bunch.
“I’m not kidding, that building could literally crumble, like, tomorrow,” Rose opined based on a tour of the building this winter. “There’s standing water in the basement of that building right now, which is pretty horrifying.”
To use a grim metaphor, historical protections prohibit execution, but do little to prevent a slow, gradual death. “Even for buildings that are designated by these lists, such as the Princess, the little piece of paper and the little plaque on the building certainly do not prohibit an owner from simply letting the building fall into disrepair,” Rose said.
The Princess is listed for sale for $2.5 million, and the owners have said they prefer to sell it to someone who will use the property as an arts or performance space of some kind. Listing agent Ian Fletcher told Taproot that remains the plan for the property. The $9.2-million crowdfunding campaign by a third party to revitalize the Princess, which has raised less than $8,000 since February 2025, has no bearing on the plan to sell it, Fletcher said.
Rose toured the Princess with his partner, playwright Samantha Fraughton, to examine its viability as a performance space for use during the Edmonton International Fringe Theatre Festival, for example. Venue upgrades are among the ideas for reuse on the theatre’s Arch Madness competitor profile.
“Being right on Whyte Avenue is a great opportunity to create a venue for entertainment,” said Vivian Manasc, founding principal at Reimagine Architects. “I think there are a lot of possibilities for what you could do with the Princess.”
She told Taproot that adding a cocktail bar somewhere in the space could help bring in revenue outside of performances, which is a point echoed in the Arch Madness post. One possibility she would not suggest for vacant and decrepit theatre renovations is a housing conversion. Former cinemas like the Princess, the Paramount on Jasper Avenue, and The Avenue on 118 Avenue do not have enough windows for this purpose, she said.
IanO
Superstar
This one hits home and brings both tears and anger to be honest.
How the current owner is permitted to let such an important asset rot away and equally how WE have not found a way to at the very least stabilize this gem is beyond me.
How the current owner is permitted to let such an important asset rot away and equally how WE have not found a way to at the very least stabilize this gem is beyond me.
kcantor
Senior Member
WTF do you expect the current owner to do? As far as I know, it’s second generation ownership that has for decades demonstrated a commitment to retaining it as an arts/cultural venue. It’s been listed for sale for years at realistic and flexible pricing in order to entice new arts/cultural ownership. You’re welcome to point fingers at the collective “WE” but you’re overstepping to point fingers at an ownership without which the building would have been demolished a long time ago.
IanO
Superstar
Fix the leaky roof and ensure the integrity of the asset you are trying to sell?
kcantor
Senior Member
Or demolish it and turn it into a “temporary parking lot”?