What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    101
Take a trip to some of the core districts of L.A. or San Diego and you can see El Mirador repeated 1,000 times over. Unique for Edmonton? More like out of place in Edmonton. Not every single chunk of last Century architecture needs to be saved unless it has architectural or historical merit. I doubt El Mirador met that standard. The new project is far better for Edmonton.
 
archited said:
Take a trip to some of the core districts of L.A. or San Diego and you can see El Mirador repeated 1,000 times over. Unique for Edmonton? More like out of place in Edmonton. Not every single chunk of last Century architecture needs to be saved unless it has architectural or historical merit. I doubt El Mirador met that standard. The new project is far better for Edmonton.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But it was well integrated with the surrounding community and had a micro culture of its own. Those kinds of things are what make a downtown interesting.
 
^^ You could apply that to plenty of our most ‘worthy’ heritage buildings. “Chicago School? Take a trip to the core district of Chicago and you can see the McLeod Building repeated 1,000 times over. Unique for Edmonton? More like out of place in Edmonton.”

Yeah, so what? We’re a colonial settlement not 150 years old — everything’s technically out of place here. The MacDonald? Chateauesque, a bad pastiche of French chateau architecture. The Legislature? American Beaux Arts, unapologetically plagiarizing the Minnesota State Capitol. The University campus? Draws from British educational traditions. The CN Tower? Riffing off New York Internationalism. Yet, you probably wouldn’t use these structures’ architectural significance — or frankly, lack thereof — in an international context to diminish their worth, would you?

There’s plenty of reasons to be ‘thankful’ that El Mirador is gone if you’re of a certain mindset. Plenty have been mentioned in the comments preceding — density, more downtown residents, the renewed civic ‘sense of self’ new buildings bring — but come on, that’s as weak as arguments come.

And for the record, this is coming from someone who agrees with @Avenuer's perspective; though a loss, El Mirador is getting a worthy replacement.
 
There's a fine line here -- pick which side you want to be on -- it's not worth arguing over. This was not a major structure like those you are referencing. So I was making not only an architectural distinction but also an historical one -- in my mind El Mirador does not cross the threshold in either instance. I once owned a pseudo Victorian house in the Boyle street area -- it too was not worth saving. When I was a member of the Old Strathcona Foundation we used to have look long and hard at many structures to see if there was merit in their historical designation -- some didn't have the architectural merit and some didn't have the historical merit -- I believe the El Mirador falls in that class. Would you say CD and SG that the Manchester (formerly the Brick Warehouse) building should be designated an historical resource?
 
Avenuer said:
I will always lament the loss of the El Mirador, but at least we are getting a quality, DENSE project in its place. 1,000+ new residents Downtown at full build-out from a single project will be great.
Click to expand...
100% my thoughts. Progress will always require sacrifice of some sort; a pill that is a lot easier to swallow when the end result is something that's both impactful and quality. This development is key in completely changing west Downtown.

And honestly, the most egregious actors in the ill fate of the El Mirador are previous ownership who let it degrade without seemingly ever putting money back into it that made the argument to tear it down much more convincing.
 
Hell, if it was tore down for a Gooch special, I'd probably still be out there picketing.
 
El Mirador WAS ultimately at it's end of life. One could observe structural deficiencies that would have been costly to repair, and I think we are ultimately getting something that will greater serve the community.
It was certainly sad seeing it go though. It was trendy and hip and I used to love watching the neighbors gather in their courtyard.
 
As stated earlier Edmonton is still a relatively young city and is still going through growing pains. As we continue to grow I hope and feel that the level of architectural design will also mature and grow too. If the design and style of El Mirador is desired again in this city, someone will build it. New architecture and revival styles will continue to be done in the city and I hope we continue to see different ideas pop up. Like it or hate it Manchester is a success in town. The Parks is different than El Mirador but will usher in a continued growth in our core.
I see the now completed Mayfair, the Parks, the neighboring park, the LRT as further catalysts for this area of downtown.
 
That might be the most succinct post of why Edmonton is what it is today (or perhaps isn't).

Character, F it
Empty lots all over the place to fill, who cares
One step forward, one back gets you somewhere alright
 
Edmonton's state of heritage preservation is very typical in North America. Probably somewhat ahead of the overall average.

It's less a story about anything unique to Edmonton as it is general economic policy in North America.


Again there are benefits to being a less expensive city.

But in the context of this project, the towers will be a major benefit by extending downtown, injecting population, and kickstarting development in the area.
 
*not all the tools were/are in place, BUT:

El Mira/PatAn should have been maintained, restored and retained, period.

For that, the owners should have been provided an opportunity to have an uplift on other lands nearby/in the Downtown in exchange for that effort.

Being rewarded with massive height, FAR, density FOR taking this down sends all of the wrong messages.

Period.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top