[occidentalcapital]

Because, simply put, the old building was nigh unsalvageable.

When Ritchie was built in a mad rush in 1912 it appears as though the E.P.S.B. had improperly surveyed the site and it was soon found out the school had been built on a former slough. During the winter of 1913/14 the structure’s foundations began to noticeably sink and water flooded its basement for much of its first school year. While the basement was eventually pumped dry, the school had to be jacked up on three separate occasions over the subsequent decades to keep it from sinking any further. The land around the area was so bad that a fiftieth anniversary booklet produced by the school later said “the children arrived at school mud up to the knees” more-often-than-not during the spring months.

Since 1971 there had been plans to replace it (Journal articles below), as even back then it was realized it was more trouble than it was worth. The building had become so worn-out over its sixty year life and nearly everything from its classrooms to washrooms, music, drama and art rooms, to changing facilities, and staff offices needed to be modernized. The Ritchie Parent Teacher Association pleaded with the Board to allocate some modicum of money to at least temporarily aid these issues, but they kept pushing them off. Finally, by the early '70s it was realized that it would take upwards of $680,000 — approximately 3.7 million today — to fix the original wing alone and was decided instead to hermetically seal it from its later 1940s and '50s annexes, which had become a school onto themselves. That was only ever meant to be a temporary solution, with demolition always planned, but it kept getting pushed back to literally today due to a lack of funds, and costly abatement prices for asbestos, lead paint, etc.

Am I sad to see it go? Without a doubt! It's one of the biggest heritage buildings in the Southeast. But on the other hand, it was an inevitability. It also isn't that huge a loss architecturally either. It's a beautiful Edwardian era Collegiate Gothic building of course, but it was one of a series of quintuplets, with the McCauley, Parkdale, and Henry Allan Grey schools also sharing the same George E. Turner template.

/history lesson over.

View attachment 243537 View attachment 243538

^ this in relation to Ritchie School. You had said "it was an inevitability. It also isn't that huge a loss architecturally either."

Couldn't the same be said for this building?

In fact, for the Baron, we have an actually architecturally significant building being proposed to replace it. I do not think the same could be said for Ritchie School?

 

[itom987]

I am very curious as to how _Citizen_Dane will respond!

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

^ this in relation to Ritchie School. You had said "it was an inevitability. It also isn't that huge a loss architecturally either."

Couldn't the same be said for this building?

I mean, this isn't really a smoking gun. If you had read the next sentence you'd see why I said that...

It's a beautiful Edwardian era Collegiate Gothic building of course, but it was one of a series of quintuplets, with the McCauley, Parkdale, and Henry Allan Grey schools also sharing the same George E. Turner template.

From an architectural perspective, the loss of Ritchie School was lessened by the fact that it has two literal twins (in the form of Parkdale and McCauley) and one sibling (H.A. Grey) still standing. That's why it wasn't "that huge a loss architecturally" — its design survives. The same can't be said of the Archibald, which again represents a weird form of transitional architecture that hasn't been preserved elsewhere.

But more importantly, the whole purpose of that spiel was to explain (as you quoted) why Richie's demolition "was an inevitability." It was built on a swamp. It flooded. It wasn't cared for. It sank. Its most historic section was allowed to rot for forty years — its demolition was bound to happen. The same can't be said for the Archibald. As far as any of us are aware, the building was built on solid ground. It hasn't flooded. It's been cared for. It hasn't been boarded up...

Now, with that said, I've been on the record elsewhere saying that I do like The Baron's design. I fully agree, it's a gorgeous design and I love the fact that Wexford's wanting to use Mass Timber Construction. My issues with it stem from the fact that there seems to be no effort on the developer's part to try and salvage or incorporate the Archibald as part of the lot's redevelopment. If it comes back through the Historic Resource Impact Assessment study that the building is completely unsalvageable or prohibitively expensive to restore then I wouldn’t hold it against Wexford in the slightest for proceeding with the project as it currently stands — in fact I would be the first to say this tower would be a worthy replacement. However, I'd like to see some kind of public acknowledgment first and foremost, if that is the reason they haven't gone ahead with trying to incorporate it, just so it doesn't seem as though they’re knocking it down for no good reason.

 

[roe_]

This is such a bizarre thread. A guy makes a well-reasoned argument that a building is worth keeping, does actual historical research, provides photographic evidence and even writes a blog post about it, and the response is "You haven't convinced me. The new design is nicer".

I mean, you can "feel" however you want, but frankly _Citizen_Dane has put together more than enough evidence to prove his point.

 

[kcantor]

it also needs to be said - again - that the failure here isn’t Citizen-Dane’s, nor is it Wexford’s.

the failure here - once again - is the city of edmonton's inability/unwillingness to put appropriate policies and incentives in place to protect those few heritage structures we have left.

 

[occidentalcapital]

I mean, this isn't really a smoking gun. If you had read the next sentence you'd see why I said that...

From an architectural perspective, the loss of Ritchie School was lessened by the fact that it has two literal twins (in the form of Parkdale and McCauley) and one sibling (H.A. Grey) still standing. That's why it wasn't "that huge a loss architecturally" — its design survives. The same can't be said of the Archibald, which again represents a weird form of transitional architecture that hasn't been preserved elsewhere.

But more importantly, the whole purpose of that spiel was to explain (as you quoted) why Richie's demolition "was an inevitability." It was built on a swamp. It flooded. It wasn't cared for. It sank. Its most historic section was allowed to rot for forty years — its demolition was bound to happen. The same can't be said for the Archibald. As far as any of us are aware, the building was built on solid ground. It hasn't flooded. It's been cared for. It hasn't been boarded up...

Now, with that said, I've been on the record elsewhere saying that I do like The Baron's design. I fully agree, it's a gorgeous design and I love the fact that Wexford's wanting to use Mass Timber Construction. My issues with it stem from the fact that there seems to be no effort on the developer's part to try and salvage or incorporate the Archibald as part of the lot's redevelopment. If it comes back through the Historic Resource Impact Assessment study that the building is completely unsalvageable or prohibitively expensive to restore then I wouldn’t hold it against Wexford in the slightest for proceeding with the project as it currently stands — in fact I would be the first to say this tower would be a worthy replacement. However, I'd like to see some kind of public acknowledgment first and foremost, if that is the reason they haven't gone ahead with trying to incorporate it, just so it doesn't seem as though they’re knocking it down for no good reason.

I think the argument that demolition was bound to happen is really a dangerous one. There is always a way to save, and very often (especially with school boards, universities, and the like), what they are really saying is that it would be too hard, or too difficult, or require too creative of a model to save, ergo the demolition is "inevitable". I think it is the least that society can do to question such a claim and hold them to a higher standard. Demand outside the box thinking, and problem solving. Architecture is of course subjective, but the Ritchie School is to me simply a beautiful building. Or was simply a beautiful building. I also believe that it is more worth saving than this one story structure that really stands in the way of a densifying and urbanizing street, really the only true pedestrian retail street that we have, and one where what it could become is truly significant...

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

I think the argument that demolition was bound to happen is really a dangerous one. There is always a way to save, and very often (especially with school boards, universities, and the like), what they are really saying is that it would be too hard, or too difficult, or require too creative of a model to save, ergo the demolition is "inevitable". I think it is the least that society can do to question such a claim and hold them to a higher standard. Demand outside the box thinking, and problem solving. Architecture is of course subjective, but the Ritchie School is to me simply a beautiful building.

I agree with you! Seriously, I do. Edmonton’s architectural story has been rife with “demolition through neglect.” In the last fifteen years alone we’ve seen the destruction of the Gem Theatre, the Arlington Apartments, the Minchau Blacksmith Shop, the Mitchell & Reed Auction House, and dozens of heritage homes all on the pretext of them being “too far gone.” I mean hell, if you dig into the histories of any of our most noteworthy heritage buildings, they all barely escaped the wrecking ball. One has to look no further than the aforementioned Phillips Warehouse, the McLeod Building, the Hotel MacDonald, the downtown C.I.B.C., the Gibson Block, the Mercer Warehouse, the Ernest Brown and Pendennis buildings, LeMarchand Mansion, half of Old Strathcona…

I can admit when I’m wrong and I’ll be the first to say that I don’t really like the almost pro-demolition undertone that comment has. You’re right. If the E.P.S.B., Conseil scolaire Centre-Nord, or a private developer had cared a bit more, were a bit more creative, or were a bit more proactive over those forty years, Ritchie could have been salvaged. “Inevitable” isn’t really the right word, at least not without a major asterisk tacked on. (“By 2020 its destruction was an inevitability, owing to …”)

Yet, there was a reason for that tone; it was born out of frustration. Again, I agree we should always strive to “demand outside the box thinking, and problem solving.” It’s a great sentiment to hold. But the problem with buildings like Ritchie was that no one was demanding anything — at least when it mattered — which opened the sluice gates for its destruction. The building sat underused and wasting away for four decades and in that time almost nobody came forward with some kind of creative solution to save it. The only one that comes to mind was a proposal to convert it into a new Spanish bilingual school, but that was immediately shot down.

Its destruction wasn’t for a lack of public awareness either. Dozens of articles in the Journal between the 1980s and early 2000s referenced its character, its history, how it could be reused if enough money was put into it, but that changed nothing. Only when its death knell was rung did people act personally offended over the impending destruction. Comments were thrown at everyone except at those who were ultimately responsible and people acted as though its demolition had come out of left field or if they were tearing down something that was still good as new. That’s where my comment came from.

There is always a way to save, and very often (especially with school boards, universities, and the like), what they are really saying is that it would be too hard, or too difficult, or require too creative of a model to save, ergo the demolition is "inevitable". I think it is the least that society can do to question such a claim and hold them to a higher standard. Demand outside the box thinking, and problem solving.

Again, I fully agree. But I hope you respect that these points basically describe what I'm doing here. According to this outlook, my position on the Archibald Block is exactly what ideal heritage preservationist is. With the Archibald, people would have you believe that its salvation "would be too hard, or too difficult, or require too creative of a model to save" or that its demolition is "inevitable" owing to the street it's on. I'm questioning "such a claim." I want to "hold [The Baron] to a higher standard,” be it from anything as complex as a full building restoration to something as simple as looking into retaining the facade. In this very thread I've been hoping for "outside the box thinking, and problem solving" to try and save a piece of Whyte Avenue's history.

 

[occidentalcapital]

That makes sense. Sometimes the new proposal can be architecturally significant and I think that should factor into the discussions. I guess for me, I think we should prioritize architecture itself, rather than history itself (although the two are very often intertwined). I would suspect you would invert the priority on the two, and I think that is okay. For the Baron, it sounds like the question is would there be a way to retain the positive aspects of the new proposal while also addressing the historical significance, all in a way that actually makes coherent architectural sense (rather than simply keeping the old as an "add on" or facadism, which if poorly done, can almost be worse than simply demolishing it all-together). Wexford has a good reputation; perhaps there might be a solution with a bit of poking and prodding.

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

I think you've got me figured perfectly on both accounts occidentalcapital...

It’s funny, because for the longest time I would've been right there with you. Pointing to all the little baubles and bibelots on a building is pretty fun. It can tell you so much about the era it’s from, the ideals of design from that time, the architects who designed it, how they confirmed to their clients wishes, etc. And I don’t mean to undercut the importance of the architectural side of architectural history. In some cases that’s one of the, or the most important parts of a building’s story. (Say with schools or banks or armouries or what have you where there's a little less personality to focus on.)

But I don’t know. The more I’ve researched, the more my interests have turned to the personal side of these stories. I guess it just inevitably stems from trying to source stuff on these more obscure buildings. You sort of get attached to the characters that inhabited them, as you go through their lives to find out why they built or lived in that building in the first place, you know? To me that’s the intrinsic value of built-heritage. No matter how ugly or benign, it gives us a kind of personal through-line to follow back to the city’s genesis and the people that witnessed that growth first hand. But that’s just my opinion, which isn’t necessarily the right one.

For the Baron, it sounds like the question is would there be a way to retain the positive aspects of the new proposal while also addressing the historical significance, all in a way that actually makes coherent architectural sense (rather than simply keeping the old as an "add on" or facadism, which if poorly done, can almost be worse than simply demolishing it all-together). Wexford has a good reputation; perhaps there might be a solution with a bit of poking and prodding.

And I fully agree here! If it can be incorporated well, then that’s what I want them to go with. To me the best case scenario could be something super striking, like the Scotia Bank Dance Centre in Vancouver. However, if the outcome will be a train wreck, then that's something else. I mean, I wouldn’t want it begrudgingly tacked on just for the sake of tacking it on. It’d be a shame for this site to turn into the Edmonton equivalent of One Bedford Condos or the Royal Canadian Military Academy — both for the Archibald and The Baron’s sakes.

I said it somewhere here, but I’d just like some kind of statement from Wexford clarifying their decision. Because — despite all my puffed-up posturing on here — they could have very well already looked into the prospect of keeping it. If they can’t because it's in too rough a shape structurally/it’s economically infeasible owing to the small size of the extant building/it won’t look good with any considered design/whatever, then just say so. I may be sad over the Archibald’s loss then, but I could respect their reasons for it (if justified) and can say “at least it was considered.”

 

[Platinum107]

I said it somewhere here, but I’d just like some kind of statement from Wexford clarifying their decision. Because — despite all my puffed-up posturing on here — they could have very well already looked into the prospect of keeping it. If they can’t because it's in too rough a shape structurally/it’s economically infeasible owing to the small size of the extant building/it won’t look good with any considered design/whatever, then just say so. I may be sad over the Archibald’s loss then, but I could respect their reasons for it (if justified) and can say “at least it was considered.”

You said that very well my friend!

 

[archited]

For those who would like to partake of some Edmonton History in a quirky, easy-to-read, 2-volume set, I recommend Tony Cashman's The Edmonton Story and More Edmonton Stories. I guarantee that these will afford you a new outlook on Edmonton and its colorful history. It will also bring you a new rationale for wanting to save and preserve as much of Edmonton's past as can be had -- it puts some heart behind the bricks-and-mortar. And I would also like to suggest that, in the tradition of Cashman, @_Citizen_Dane_ is well positioned to write new volumes and I would strongly encourage him to do so.

 

[David A]

We don't have a lot of historical buildings left in this city, so I think for that reason alone we need to be more careful about keeping what we have. It is not inevitable older buildings get torn down, although there is some willful neglect by certain owners who try to achieve demolition by stealth, by first letting the building get irreparably run down. I think the City needs to do more about dealing with that. However, as far as I can tell the Archibald is usable and not falling into serious disrepair.

Yes, the Wexford building is nice, but surely there is another lot somewhere else in this city where it can be built. There is a currently empty lot less than half a block away, where as far as I can tell nothing has been happening for quite a while. There is a one story building also about a half a block away that is not at all historic and I believe has been sitting completely vacant for a while. These are just the two closest sites that immediately come to mind for me, there are others in the area.