Clearshades
Senior Member
Just the way it stated, it was either perceived by me or your expression is very silver spoon-fed reply.
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Vacs
Active Member
The car analogy for the old remand center is terrible.
We are not talking about a historical building, where there is reason to keep it around because of its beautiful history. Its a building where the majority of its previous tenants have horrible memories.
The amount of scanning, saw cutting and coring of the building to turn it into something pleasant, is not reasonable for this particular building.
Demo it
Clearshades
Senior Member
It is not necessarily about historical preservation but pragmatism, environmental, financial prudence , and maintaining status quo on current density/connectivity
kcantor
Senior Member
it would be competitive with anything else but there are some users where incomes are marginal and for whom the spaces would be spectacular and they wouldn’t trigger the same trauma potential as shelter spaces or supportive living might.
as one example, for artist live/work space the potential for the existing two story tall interior spaces would allow for units for sculptors to work on large pieces (supported by oversized elevators). those tall spaces would also allow dancers to practice (ballet and modern need spaces high enough for one partner to lift or “throw” the other. the horizontal/slit windows provide perfect light for painters.
there is a multi purpose auditorium that could be a black box theatre, there is service access and spaces that could be readily configured for food services and retail.
there is space that could be sound proofed and used for music rehearsal and/or recording.
it’s within walking distance of our major arts and entertainment facilities (employment) as well as macewan (education).
this could incorporate a permanent home for the edmonton sculpture project or include a home to “ihuman on steroids”.
all of the above are also compatible with market housing if t try they were part of a mixed use project and they would increase the desirability of market housing in the adjacent neighborhoods, something they all need, as they would be able to associate with trendy/chic (even if marginal income) neighbours.
i can see winspear and the aga and the citadel and the ram all participating by providing units for artists or musicians or presenters “in residence”…
David A
Senior Member
It isn't necessarily pragmatic, if because of the layout and all the concrete, it takes more resources and money to transform it than it would to tear it down and build something new that would work better for whatever it would be used for. I believe ultimately something better can and should be built here and keeping what is there will be sub-optimal.
kcantor
Senior Member
it might not be a perfect analogy but it’s certainly not terrible.
cars aren’t - or shouldn’t be - disposable items buildings aren’t - or shouldn’t be - either.
as for allowing them to be demolished simply because they’re not old, if we allow for their east demolition they never have the opportunity to become old.
it’s disingenuous to say the remand centre is no tegler building but in many respects it’s just as well suited to repurposing than the tegler was. and, for perspective, not only have we lost the tegler building to this approach, we’ve also lost the building that replaced the tegler building.
Clearshades
Senior Member
Tearing down or build up, if the tower's skeletons are intact, it boils down to which process will be cheaper. That is call "pragmatism". Why rear down to spend more money and build up IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
This space has myriads of potential.
Vacs
Active Member
I'm all for repurposing old buildings, not the remand center though.
Terrible memories for many people, including staff
multiple contractors have got together to do budget pricing just to bring M&E up to current code and its not feasible.
then we talk about the energy model, tiny windows, etc
This one is one you tear down
Gronk!
Senior Member
kcantor
Senior Member
^
partly because it’s never been available for sale… the last time i talked to the province they weren’t prepared to negotiate a sale to the private sector on a sole source/sole sale basis and they weren’t prepared to tender out the sale without the required first offering it to the city and other “lower orders of government” (although that may have taken place since).
and partly because by the time they’re ready i’ll probably be too old.
partly because it’s never been available for sale… the last time i talked to the province they weren’t prepared to negotiate a sale to the private sector on a sole source/sole sale basis and they weren’t prepared to tender out the sale without the required first offering it to the city and other “lower orders of government” (although that may have taken place since).
and partly because by the time they’re ready i’ll probably be too old.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Munanyo
Active Member
Going to be so nice to see this thing come down. Hopefully a shiny new courthouse can take its place.
Clearshades
Senior Member
Why tear it down? Turn it into a storage centre, so we can focus on other empty parcels. The city and province can be the proprietor COLLECTING MONEY TO OFFSET EXPENSES. THIS IS PISSING ME OFF!
Gronk!
Senior Member
Demolition of old Remand Centre to begin next month | CityNews Edmonton
The province has fenced off the 96 Street shared-use path near the Old Remand Centre to make room for demolition work next month.
edmonton.citynews.ca
EdmTrekker
Senior Member
It has no practical use. It was designed to prison standards with extreme reinforced walls throughout - a fortress and renovating it is impractical and not financially viable for any business. It will be a bitch to demolish but it needs to go and the site turned over for other uses - such as one of the structures for a new high speed rail line to Southern Alberta.