roe_
Active Member
I really like the historical photos, but I find the pictures and description of the people to be fascinating. This building really is a small slice of what Edmonton used to be, which is almost unrecognizable today.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
I really like the historical photos, but I find the pictures and description of the people to be fascinating. This building really is a small slice of what Edmonton used to be, which is almost unrecognizable today.
_Citizen_Dane_
Active Member
That’s what makes researching history so special to me. Being able to reconstruct some sliver of a person's life, no matter how small, helps set a building apart from being just a building and changes it into something that’s actually tangible, that you can think about, and in turn relate to those who lived in and experienced it first hand years ago. Like I’m sure I didn’t even make a scratch into the storied lives of Dr. Archibald or the Morie brothers, but knowing something about them, to me anyways, is way more fascinating than being able to say, “well yes, the building’s of the Edwardian vernacular, defined by its use of pilasters, bays, and decorative pressed tin cornice…” or whatever. Not that that isn’t important of course, but the former is what I always care about when reading up on historic buildings.
EtoV
Active Member
To be honest casually looking at this thread and originally being pretty indifferent to the existing building, my opinion on this development and the value of the historic building definitely changed with those pictures.
I don't believe that we necessary should be pushing for complete preservation, but we should at the very least be aiming to preserve the OG facade in some way. Even if that means recreating/mimmicking some elements, and/or replacing the towers podium with it (with the tower sufficiently set back to maintain a sense of the original scale and feel).
I don't believe that we necessary should be pushing for complete preservation, but we should at the very least be aiming to preserve the OG facade in some way. Even if that means recreating/mimmicking some elements, and/or replacing the towers podium with it (with the tower sufficiently set back to maintain a sense of the original scale and feel).
itom987
Active Member
That's a very nice photo, but there is a smaller version shown on the second page of this thread.
https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/...aron-33m-9s-wexford-developments.31138/page-2
We need to see a photo that is earlier than that one, with the brick exposed. Or did they stucco over the brick when it was built?
https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/...aron-33m-9s-wexford-developments.31138/page-2
We need to see a photo that is earlier than that one, with the brick exposed. Or did they stucco over the brick when it was built?
_Citizen_Dane_
Active Member
I know that photo's there, I'm the one who posted it after all. There's two reasons I've attached it again. Firstly, the new one's a far higher resolution scan where you can actually make out the details of the building pretty clearly. Secondly, it also proves we don't need a new picture — it's already perfect for our purposes. Take a look at the parapet above the cornice. That's exposed brick there, plain to see, especially on the corner closest to the camera where the joints aren't perfectly aligned. The building's not stuccoed and I wished I hadn't suggested so originally.
By the time this picture was taken, only one part of the building was modified. That's the easternmost storefronts. When it comes to judging the building's architectural worth, we can ignore that. It's almost a one-hundred percent certainty, given the layout of the building as confirmed by the fire insurance map, that those storefronts would have looked identical to the westernmost storefronts. Since the westernmost unit's deign remains untouched in the period photo and remains unchanged to this very day, its easy to visualize what the building would have looked like when new.
With that in mind, a likely approximation:
Last edited:
itom987
Active Member
Nice photoshop work, but you should officially note on the photo that it was photoshopped otherwise people would misinterpret this photo as fact. I used to be a graphic designer and can still tell when photos are photoshopped. Having said that, in spite of trying to increase the clarity of the photo, there is still no visible sign of bricks on it. I could say that the power lines are causing people to jump to conclusions and that someone left a 2x4 on the upper eastern corner of the building that is sticking out a little on the side.
The point is to show beyond doubt how the building looked before stucco was applied. Otherwise you haven't convinced anyone.
The point is to show beyond doubt how the building looked before stucco was applied. Otherwise you haven't convinced anyone.
itom987
Active Member
It is also important for the developer to see the condition of the brick before they applied stucco because they could be hiding cracks. One only has to look at the Canadian land titles building in downtown to see what I am talking about. For the record, that building looks much better without the stucco on in spite of the poor condition of the brick.
_Citizen_Dane_
Active Member
A picture of a picture will only get so much across. When you look at it in person it's clear. Squinting's your next best option.
Irregardless, I know what I'm looking at here. Even broke out the ol' magnifying glass to double check. The streetcar catenary runs horizontal, not vertical. They've been marked in yellow. The bricks visible joints are marked in red. As for what you're interpreting as a 2x4, that's just the corner of the building. I've marked that in blue. The neighbouring barbershop building was set back slightly from the sidewalk in comparison to the Archibald. What you're looking at is the eastern wall of the latter.
No, it's really not. You've made it that. This isn't a court of law. I'm not here to prove anything or convince anyone (as I've said before in this very thread). All I'm doing here is stating my opinion on why I think the building has worth and defending that opinion. You're more than free to disagree with my points and I'm more than free to disagree with yours. If you think the building's worth nothing, that's totally cool, I don't hold it against you.
And besides, no convincing is necessary. As feedback on the City's project page and statements from other forum members on this very thread show, my position isn't something fringe.
Last edited:
itom987
Active Member
Alright, fair enough. Perhaps I need to get new glasses. lol
I still wish there was a better picture.
I still wish there was a better picture.
archited
Senior Member
You go @_Citizen_Dane_ I put my faith in your research and knowledge spilling therefrom. We cannot eat away at the historical substance of Old Strathcona -- you have it exactly right!!!
Platinum107
Senior Member
What are you talking about? The two identical women in the same pose are clearly just twins shopping for the same coat in the window of both stores
I'm just kidding, of course. God I'm torn here, and I guess if I had to chose the Archibald or the Baron I would choose to preserve the former. I do wish that some compromise could be made though, like through facade incorporation. Maybe this proposal could be reimagined on another less-significant lot on Whyte...
Avenuer
Senior Member
Thanks for the research Dane, very informative!
The question I have is, what is that elegant 4-storey building that I circled in red? It appears to be between 106 and 107 Streets (where the Varscona and crappy above-ground parking garage are now):
The question I have is, what is that elegant 4-storey building that I circled in red? It appears to be between 106 and 107 Streets (where the Varscona and crappy above-ground parking garage are now):
archited
Senior Member
Another unfortunate loss...
TimETown
Active Member
St. Joseph's Hospital? Or a version of it?
_Citizen_Dane_
Active Member
I don't wan't my long windedness to further sidetrack the discussion too much, so I'll spoiler tag everything:
That was the Whyte Block (sometimes spelt White depending on the source), located at the corner of 107th Street. It was originally built as a mixed-use retail/apartment block in 1912. It doesn't look like it was that successful, as by 1919 it was being used to house returning veterans.
As TimETown correctly guessed, it later became St. Joseph's Hospital. The entire building was purchased by the Catholic Archdiocese in 1927 for conversion into an "old peoples home." The Sisters of Providence were responsible for day-to-day operations. Following the construction of a new purpose built hospital next door in 1946-47 (which still stands today as The Garneau apartments), the old building served as an annex to house the Sisters themselves. By 1962 it was in such a poor state that it was condemned. Demolition followed in 1964.
I haven't been able to confirm it (although to be fair I haven't exactly been proactively looking), but I believe it to be designed by James E. Wize, the man behind the Alberta Hotel and MacLean Block's design. It matches his style to a tee, particularly that of his original Corona Hotel. If it was, it's a funny coincidence that three of his most major works (the Maclean, Corona, and Whyte) were all located on or near 107th Street, albeit on different sides of the river.
Here it is in 1914. As visible in the picture posted above, it's storefronts were completely removed when the Sisters took it over.
The Sisters' website goes into the story of St. Joseph's a bit more here:
www.providence.ca
As for the Whyte Block itself, here's a news clipping from 1962 that goes into its specific history a bit more:
As TimETown correctly guessed, it later became St. Joseph's Hospital. The entire building was purchased by the Catholic Archdiocese in 1927 for conversion into an "old peoples home." The Sisters of Providence were responsible for day-to-day operations. Following the construction of a new purpose built hospital next door in 1946-47 (which still stands today as The Garneau apartments), the old building served as an annex to house the Sisters themselves. By 1962 it was in such a poor state that it was condemned. Demolition followed in 1964.
I haven't been able to confirm it (although to be fair I haven't exactly been proactively looking), but I believe it to be designed by James E. Wize, the man behind the Alberta Hotel and MacLean Block's design. It matches his style to a tee, particularly that of his original Corona Hotel. If it was, it's a funny coincidence that three of his most major works (the Maclean, Corona, and Whyte) were all located on or near 107th Street, albeit on different sides of the river.
Here it is in 1914. As visible in the picture posted above, it's storefronts were completely removed when the Sisters took it over.
The Sisters' website goes into the story of St. Joseph's a bit more here:
Edmonton - Sisters of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul
www.providence.ca