News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

February 9th

February 13th
"Deadline to bid on U of A ring houses extended"
 
This seems to me like a golden opportunity to have them relocated to Fort Edmonton Park (1911 and 1914 period) where they could host catered meetings and events -- there is certainly the room to accommodate them and a fundraiser to pay for the move doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch.
 
I love love love Fort Ed, but similar to the Capitol Theatre, why are we Disneyfying this very young city?

We spend ~14 mil to not have a theatre on Jasper Avenue...
 
My ramblings, in case my position on here wasn't made clear enough already:
February 9th

February 13th
"Deadline to bid on U of A ring houses extended"
This is good to see. Frankly, the whole "you've only got three days to figure this out for us" schtick the University tried pulling was disgusting. I'm glad that people rightfully called out b.s. as b.s. and they're relented a little.
Also worth mentioning, it's not just the Ring Houses that are up for demolition. The beautiful Vance (11019 90th Avenue) and Smith (11032 90th Avenue) Residences are also on the University's chopping block:
Vance Residence (11009 90 Avenue).jpg Smith Residence (11013 90 Avenue).jpg
This seems to me like a golden opportunity to have them relocated to Fort Edmonton Park (1911 and 1914 period) where they could host catered meetings and events -- there is certainly the room to accommodate them and a fundraiser to pay for the move doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch.
I fully agree, but from what's been reported the Fort either doesn't want them or doesn't have the capability to accept them right now. There's rumours that they've bought the old Gold Bar Farmhouse (a beautiful palatial Edwardian home) and are moving it there, so they could be strapped for resources.
 
I agree with the "money issue" @_Citizen_Dane_ for the Fort park, but I also see the university's point about not having a functional use for the structures and the cost for maintaining them, what with the severe cutback in education endowments from the Province (that part really has me steamed), hobbles any useful discussion. I don't see another clear alternative (especially under the time pressure set by VP Sharman -- also "Steam"-worthy). I don't think raising money to leave them in situ is viable -- I imagine that the University has a plan for better use of the land, long-term. A public fund-raiser to relocate the buildings on the Fort property -- since they both have pronounced historical merit and pronounced architectural merit -- seems like the best of many not-so-good choices. At least there they could represent a scholastic enclave paying homage to the start up years of 1908 forward (built form) -- 1911 and 1914 put them among the earliest structures there. It seems to me that they would absolutely fit into the notion of the Fort's purpose -- and comparing Fort Edmonton to Disneyland is just plain stupid -- the one is an homage to history and culture; the other is fantasy entertainment.
 
I get what you are saying, but most other great cities find ways forward for buildings such as this and generally in situ.

How about.... relocating them along Sask Drive or 116st and make them either houses again or other small office uses and then do a 99 year lease for the lands between there and the parkade for medium-scale infill and a tower or two on the east side of the site.

Townhouses and a low-rise (lighter blue) similar to the new stuff on the east side of campus for faculty/staff/students with two x 20 storey (darker blue - one condo, one rental) with proceeds going to restoration, relocation and repurposing. A little campus village if you will.

WIN WIN WIN

See:

Screen Shot 2021-02-16 at 8.36.26 AM.png
 
^^^^ that is an alternative, I suppose, but a very complex one where you have to get the U of A Board of Governors on board along with a developer (or two), along with sub-lessors for the Ring houses, plus realty transactions for all concerned properties, plus agreement on demo of the existing Faculty Club (does it wait for a new one to be built before demo can proceed), plus the fact that the existing Faculty Club also has period architectural merit, plus there is still the relocation costs. Who on earth could pull this off in a manner timely enough to meet all of the criteria proposed?!? These buildings would be well-served relocated to Fort Edmonton Park through architectural merit alone -- historical is just a bonus add-on. I think fund-raising for the Ring houses located there -- especially if the site planning could be maintained and the original landscape replicated (engaging landscape would be a HUGE plus for Fort Edmonton Park) -- there are numerous re-uses that come to mind: 1. University Archive and Research Centre for all of Edmonton's universities and post-secondary Institutions, 2. Meeting space for rentals with catering service in-house since they all have workable kitchens (I presume), 3. One of them could be a dine-in restaurant with a prix-fixe menu that harkens back to the settler days of the Prairies or one could be an indigenous-flavored experimental venture that features natural herbs and legumes of the Alberta wilds, 4. a mini-educational live-in campus for exceptional students prepping for University... ahhh, there are scores of possibilities. But first there is the move...
 
Why is it all of a sudden that the houses have to moved? The University doesn't need the green space there and frankly this rush is simply a tactic to defeat any possible opposition and dump the capital liability as quickly as possible. This is short term thinking at its worst and if it were up to me the houses would stay exactly where they are and a creative solution could be found for their reuse.

As an alumnus, I also have to carefully consider whether the University intends to be a good steward of the donations it receives. There certainly seems little point in gifting property if they are going to dump it anytime we have a government that cuts their budget.
 

Back
Top