What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    27
Really? We need to save every crummy boring plane one storey building because it is 100 years old?

I am all for preserving history, but it's gotta be prominent. When I look at a historical building I want to say 'wow what a beautiful old building I wonder how old it is'. This building does not say that to me, honestly just discovered now that it is 1909. Nobody, other than maybe a very tiny few, looks at this building and wonders what the history is behind it.
 
crisp said:
Really? We need to save every crummy boring plane one storey building because it is 100 years old?

I am all for preserving history, but it's gotta be prominent. When I look at a historical building I want to say 'wow what a beautiful old building I wonder how old it is'. This building does not say that to me, honestly just discovered now that it is 1909. Nobody, other than maybe a very tiny few, looks at this building and wonders what the history is behind it.
Click to expand...

Well you're definitely entitled to your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. In the past we've been way too accommodating with allowing our historic buildings to be redeveloped, with varying results. I don't feel an old building needs to be a neo-gothic or art deco masterpiece to warrant saving, especially on Whyte Ave. What you see as a boring and plain, I see as a potential for something unique. Once stripped back I think we'll be able to see its character. Look what Beljan did with the Tipton building, I'd love to see something similar done with this.
 
Pretty nice looking proposal, but I would prefer the CRUs to vary from each other in regards to finishing material (much like Raymond Bloc's podium). As it stands right now I don't think it meshes well with the feel and vibe of Whyte Ave.
 
crisp said:
Really? We need to save every crummy boring plane one storey building because it is 100 years old?

I am all for preserving history, but it's gotta be prominent. When I look at a historical building I want to say 'wow what a beautiful old building I wonder how old it is'. This building does not say that to me, honestly just discovered now that it is 1909. Nobody, other than maybe a very tiny few, looks at this building and wonders what the history is behind it.
Click to expand...
That's not the point @crisp -- it's the neighborhood that needs preservation. Keep doing this kind of demolition and Old Strathcona will be no more.
 
crisp said:
Really? We need to save every crummy boring plane one storey building because it is 100 years old?
Click to expand...
I mean, Beljan’s Tipton Block redevelopment half-a-block east was celebrated by everyone on here and elsewhere, even though compared to other buildings nearby, like the Hulbert or other Tipton Block, it's an incredibly boring, plain, 100 year old building. That one even got the Province involved in trying to save it, all because it’s representative of the avenue’s original character. The only reason this building seems “crummy” or “boring” is that successive renovations have not been particularly kind — see the attached picture from 1942.

Archibald Block 1942 Crop.jpg


crisp said:
I am all for preserving history, but it's gotta be prominent. When I look at a historical building I want to say 'wow what a beautiful old building I wonder how old it is'. This building does not say that to me, honestly just discovered now that it is 1909. Nobody, other than maybe a very tiny few, looks at this building and wonders what the history is behind it.
Click to expand...
But to be fair, how often do you think Joe Edmontonian really stops to wonder about the city's history to begin with? Heritage appreciation in any form is a niche interest.

I will say, however, that is a very dangerous stance to take if you want anything to be preserved. “There’s always a bigger fish” and what might seem prominent will always be dwarfed by something else. Sure, 124th Street’s Substation No.600 is an Art Deco building, but it’s no Federal Building or Enterprise Square — yet, somehow I’d doubt you’d see many say we shouldn’t keep it around because it’s not a grand, flamboyant example of the style. Yes, the design of a building is important — and in some cases the most important thing — but most properties in Edmonton that have been designated as heritage buildings by the City or Province aren’t architecturally significant in the slightest. Think of any heritage home, run-of-the-mill Edwardian church, or brick warehouse. They’re not historically significant for their design, they’re historically significant for what they represent: the home of a mayor or teacher or businessman; the home of a particularly noteworthy or longstanding congregation; the home of an important business; and above all, the place they occupy within their homes — that is, their communities. That’s the criteria they’re judged on, not so much “it’s got dormers with three-over-one windows.” And in those regards, particularly the last one, buildings like this one, the Archibald Block, are important.

It’s one of the oldest storefronts along an avenue celebrated for its heritage buildings and small-scale C.R.U.’s. It speaks to the original scale and form of the street. It’s tied to the prominent local businessman who built it, Dr. Seymour Archibald, one of Strathcona’s first professional doctors. It’s on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. It meets all the criteria to be saved, despite being a “crummy, boring, plain, one storey building.”

Now, I’m all for Strathcona and Queen Alexandra’s continued densification and I’m not advocating that this building needs or even necessarily should be saved — to consider that I’ll wait until there’s actual renderings floating around, and not just the elevations, to judge its potential replacement. However, the factors I mentioned should be considered and to just to sweep it away as not some architectural mecca seems disingenuous.
 
Yah I definitely have to disagree and do feel that a building does need some real architectural appeal to warrant saving. I get the whole "Edmonton has destroyed too many old buildings in the past" but that doesn't mean we now have to save absolutely everything. The issues in the past WAS of truly unique buildings and not of these, nothing till reverse those mistakes.

And @archited Old Strathcona will never 'be no more'. The truly unique buildings on the Ave will never have a discussion around the idea of being torn down.
 
@_Citizen_Dane_ ok that old picture does make me rethink a little. You're right, the successive renovations has destroyed this building's appeal.

I don't know, I am for preservation but I guess I am quite biased on "if it appeals to me" only. Not 100% convinced this building worth it, especially when I see the podium of the new building to look like it would fit quite well in the area. If it was a bad replacement I'd be all up in arms as well.

If saving this building requires whoever does so to add back that cool crown, I'd lean even more towards this side of the debate 😅
 
crisp said:
And @archited Old Strathcona will never 'be no more'. The truly unique buildings on the Ave will never have a discussion around the idea of being torn down.
Click to expand...
Have you been to Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco lately? It doesn't take much to destroy an area's preserved vibe -- in this case, too, it came -- as the poet said -- "on little cat feet" and as Joni Mitchell noted "don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone..."
 
i think one of the things that needs to be balanced in this conversation is who's responsibility it is to preserve heritage and at what cost. as long as it is solely the responsibility of a current owner there will be ongoing and continuing pressure to give up the good fight. municipal and provincial grant programs help but until the city allows the market sale of unused density perhaps even with a bonus density to encourage the practice, it will be a losing battle. at some point whether the owner is an owner/user, a landlord, private sector, public sector or institutional (i.e. the knox or macdougal church) if the owner has to forego development potential on top of the costs of preservation then the buildings will be demolished or neglected to the point where they become derelict.
 
Well, maybe they could incorporate the old building into the podium hmmmm? 🤔

And change aspects of the design to respect that of course.
 
Last edited:
archited said:
@kcantor -- excellent points; most cities have such programs as you so eloquently describe. The question comes (again) -- why is Edmonton behind on this?
Click to expand...
Now, I’m not a lawyer, nor a heritage planner, nor have gone through the designation process myself, but I have talked to heritage planners from the City and Province, along with others in the know and it seems widely agreed that the current form of legislation here is one of the biggest hindrances to actually getting things protected, with a lot of blame typically placed at the feet of the City re: heritage matters that should actually be directed at the Province's.

We have very, very weak legislation in Alberta regarding the protection of historic buildings thanks in large part to the overarching Historic Resources Act. Now on the Province’s side, “The Minister may by order designate any historic resource the preservation of which the Minister considers to be in the public interest, together with any land in or on which it is located and adjacent land that may be specified in the order, as a Provincial Historic Resource,” but this is so rarely done because it’s typically a political headache. That typically leaves the onus on the municipality to step in and protect things as they see fit, but there’s huge holes in that, as the Act puts a lot of emphasis on private property rights over the idea of collective heritage (which is it’s own can of worms that's too big to get into here) and as such, the municipality has to compensate landowners for the “lost value” a designation incurs — Section 28 here talks about that — which again means it’s typically unpalatable to do so. That’s been done very rarely here in Edmonton, with the only recent example that comes to mind being the old Edmonton Iron Works Building on 96th Street and 105th Avenue. Right now, designation, for all intents and purposes, is a purely voluntary decision, with a restoration grant being the only carrot on the stick.

I can’t speak with one-hundred percent certainty, as it’s not entirely clear to me, but judging by the text it seems like density transfers may be possible under the current version of the H.R.A. It does state that “The council may, with the agreement of the owner, provide the compensation under subsection (1) by grant, tax relief or any other means,” but again, whether density transfers fall under “other means” isn't really clear. Now, I’d love for them to be done here. I know British Columbia, another province with pretty outdated heritage preservation laws, does it to good effect in Vancouver.
 
I'm up in the air about this proposal as I've always like the character of this building, even in its current form. Density is good and is definitely the current/next phase of Old Strathcona's evolution. Now this may just be more facadism but also an effort to meet half way for this development. What about the new development proceed but in turn try to recreate the original look and facade pictured here into it's new podium?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top