[kcantor]

the primary objections to this are about the preservation or the non-preservation of historic buildings. it's got nothing to do with what's being proposed to replace it.

if what's going to replace them is a criteria for their preservation or their demolition, then that will be the end of all of our historic buildings. and for anyone wondering how we got to where we are now in regard to having a disgraceful number of historic buildings left in our inventory, that's exactly how we got here.

we need to figure this out while we still have any historic inventory at all to figure it out with.

 

[archited]

^^^^ and the whole essence of Old Strathcona is wrapped up in the word "old" and its unmitigated success leans to the re-purposing of historic buildings. Build new structures where historic ones aren't or -- at a minimum -- incorporate the old into the new.

 

[quit]

the primary objections to this are about the preservation or the non-preservation of historic buildings. it's got nothing to do with what's being proposed to replace it.

if what's going to replace them is a criteria for their preservation or their demolition, then that will be the end of all of our historic buildings. and for anyone wondering how we got to where we are now in regard to having a disgraceful number of historic buildings left in our inventory, that's exactly how we got here.

we need to figure this out while we still have any historic inventory at all to figure it out with.

The newest office tower downtown would like to speak with you given they simply used original brick on the podium and many people seemed to be okay with that since it was done well.

I do quite enjoy the discourse from both sides in this thread even if I find myself opposite of keeping this building.

I think citizen Dane said it well a few pages ago when he said historical preservation is a niche thing - though it may have more support than 'niche' based on the responses here.

 

[CplKlinger]

I love this proposal overall. but I agree with KCantor and Archited. I'm tired of the cycle that we seem to be stuck in, where we demolish historically significant buildings to make room for exciting new developments, and then bash Edmonton for "having no history or culture" twenty years down the road. Part of a city's shared identity stems from the residents' shared history. Whether we've lived here for a few months, or a few decades, we can all look to our historic buildings as connections to the past, and those who were here before us and helped to shape Edmonton. Once they're gone, they're gone for good, and we rob future generations of their historical value. I would much rather that this building be restored to its historical appearance rather than be demolished. If more can be built on top of it like what was done with Brighton Block, I'd be all for that. I just don't want the building demolished entirely.

 

[David A]

So if a lot is vacant for a while, you toss out your principles relative to the neighbourhood history you are trying to protect? If so, I think those arguing that this development is out of place lose a lot of credibility. There are other lots around Whyte Ave that have been vacant for a while, so it seems odd to simply bend the rules for those as well. Note I am playing devil's advocate here - I support this development and think Whyte Ave is pretty much the perfect fit for mid rise development. If not here, where else? Given the post pandemic world we are going to find ourselves in, I think mid rise residential is going to be required to drive business in areas such as Whyte as less people go out of their way for destination type of places.

As someone that lived in the area for quite a while and still lives relatively close in Bonnie Doon, Whyte Ave is in a pretty sad place right now. It needs well thought out developments like this to give it a chance.

If the decision was up to me, the Raymond Block would have been four stories. I was explaining the reasons why I thought it happened, not fully supporting the height exception City Council made. If it is an empty lot, there is no issue of a historic building being torn down, so it really is not the same situation as this, is it? Where the Raymond Block is now was a gas station before, occupying about half the lot or so with the rest for parking, etc.. I recall that gas station as I went there when it was there and I don't think it had any historic features to fit in with the area or there was any real controversy about its demolition, other than it was a convenient place for those of us who lived nearby to get gas.

 

[itom987]

The existing building is not made of brick and easily replicated on the cheap. The timber should be salvaged though.

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

The existing building is not made of brick and easily replicated on the cheap. The timber should be salvaged though.

But the existing building is made out of brick... Strathcona Town Council banned the use of all-wood construction in 1907. The Archibald was built in 1909. It just doesn't look it because it's been stuccoed (likely in the '30s, when many buildings were, for a cleaner, more modern look).

The pink markings on this 1913 fire insurance map show what lies underneath:

 

[archited]

Good catch @_Citizen_Dane_ ! Save the buildings!

 

[itom987]

Is there any photo out there that shows the building before they stuccoed it over?

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

A physical photo could be sitting at the City, Provincial, or Glenbow Archives. Back then photographers took pictures of everything and anything, so it's likely. But as far as online? Not that I’ve been able to come across. The closest you’re gonna get is this 1912 picture (with it on the centre-left), although as is typical of Albertan archives it’s been compressed to the point you won't be able to make much out:

 

[itom987]

It's hard to make a decision on where I stand on this because I don't know what it originally looked like. Having said that, what I do know is that the building is only one storey high and has almost no ornamentation on it which may look awkward if the facade is incorporated into the new building. This might be the case of a building no longer serving the needs of a growing city.

 

[itom987]

The lack of a photo is telling me that the building was not significant enough for people to care about taking a photo of it back then.

 

[_Citizen_Dane_]

This might be the case of a building no longer serving the needs of a growing city.

But that’s the case for all heritage buildings, isn’t it? Their very existence isn’t practical to the needs of a growing city. They’re old, notoriously temperamental, use outdated construction techniques, are obsolete in style, are undersized for the areas they inhabit, aren’t worth the land they sit on… Sure, it’s fair to say that a building like the Balfour Manor isn’t the best use of prime Oliver real-estate nowadays, but that’s not why we keep it around. We keep these places because they’re all those weird things: they’re old, they use strange, often extinct construction methods, they’re built in styles that will never see a revival, they’re undersized which represents what the area once was… Not everything has to be one-hundred percent optimized to the city's present to have some kind of worth.

The lack of a photo is telling me that the building was not significant enough for people to care about taking a photo of it back then.

As I said in my previous comment, one doesn’t exist online. That doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist at all. Take it from someone who’s spent dozens of hours digging through the actual, physical photo collections held at the City and Provincial Archives. Their digitized collections represent maybe one-tenth of what they actually have — if that! Digitization of film negatives or prints is a delicate, time consuming job (as anyone who shoots film for fun nowadays can attest to). Even more so if you want quality scans that've been cleaned or retouched to remove damage, hair, dust, etc.

Just because there isn’t one online isn’t a smoking gun that says the Archibald isn't important. Hell, even more “important” buildings like Whyte Ave’s own Douglas, Tipton, or Hulbert Blocks lack any good, head on pictures in the digitized collections either. Again, photographers of the era documented everything, including men peeling potatoes, bird house competitions, and doggos driving trucks. A picture likely exists somewhere in one of the physical collections, it just hasn't been scanned yet.

 

[itom987]

Look at the photo you posted above, you see the post office and the wooden building across the street. The wooden building is probably older but would not stand the test of time, especially in a large city. We could preserve the facades and incorporate them both into a larger building. The post office would make a nice podium but the wooden building would look awkward, you would have to enclose it in a glass atrium or something to make it work. Which would mean moving the facade inside the building away from the sidewalk. I don't think such a building would be worth it unless it had an incredible story about someone famous.

I guess we got a lot of work to do regarding those photos!

 

[ION]

Timber... Knock it down! That's my opinion. If it were a larger building I'd say keep it. But it's a smaller, older one on a site that could easily use a larger more denser structure, especially given its already higher neighbours... As long as the pedestrian frontage is spot on I say it's time to MOVE on... If you didn't tell me it was an older building I wouldn't have noticed to really cared because it's been so heavily modified that there's no real redeeming beauty left in it...