Horne and Pitfield Building Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Limak Investments

Sharpea3 said:
Hate this historical tokenism. Why cant they build on any of the empty lots on this street. This building could be preserved by conversion to condos and retail, like cobogo or philips. Preserving 2 walls is an absolute joke, and putting these two walls into the historic register is a slap in the face to the city. It has become a free pass for developers to demolish whatever they want.
If this goes through I hope the walls are actually preserved and not demolished only for the outside brick layer be pasted back into place over top the new concrete structure - Like the Mclaren. Guaranteed, society will look back at this trend of so called "façade preservation" as a misguided failure to preserve anything of actual value. These Frankenstein structures will just be a sorry reminder of that.
Click to expand...
As much as I agree, reality is a bitch and you cannot force people to develop where they don't want and, even if they did want, they not always can.

They own, or have come to an agreement to own, that piece of land and the building sitting on it, not the gravel parking lots around it. You can't force the lot owner to sell/develop his land and if you keep blocking redevelopment, even if it preserves at least something, under the argument you made, you'll simply end up with no developments at all. Doesn't matter how much wishful thinking we put on it, that's the (sad) reality of things.

Unless you're planning on having all of the land become State property and dictate every single aspect of how we use it, that will be the price to pay, for living in a free(ish) country.
 
ChazYEG said:
As much as I agree, reality is a bitch and you cannot force people to develop where they don't want and, even if they did want, they not always can.

They own, or have come to an agreement to own, that piece of land and the building sitting on it, not the gravel parking lots around it. You can't force the lot owner to sell/develop his land and if you keep blocking redevelopment, even if it preserves at least something, under the argument you made, you'll simply end up with no developments at all. Doesn't matter how much wishful thinking we put on it, that's the (sad) reality of things.

Unless you're planning on having all of the land become State property and dictate every single aspect of how we use it, that will be the price to pay, for living in a free(ish) country.
Click to expand...
How have other cities managed to do a superior job to Edmonton in preserving their historic buildings? Calgary, amongst many other North American cities, has seen significantly more development in its core and has done a vastly better job preserving, and utilizing its historic structures to profitable affect. I honestly don't know what they are doing, but preserving historic structures does not hinder development. One could argue preservation encourages more development; Whyte avenue and area is valuable exactly because history is preserved. Good public policy and stronger development laws that inhibit vacant lots from sitting empty do exist. I'm curious to know what laws/policies other cities have that Edmonton lacks and how that can be changed.
 
Sharpea3 said:
How have other cities managed to do a superior job to Edmonton in preserving their historic buildings? Calgary, amongst many other North American cities, has seen significantly more development in its core and has done a vastly better job preserving, and utilizing its historic structures to profitable affect. I honestly don't know what they are doing, but preserving historic structures does not hinder development. One could argue preservation encourages more development; Whyte avenue and area is valuable exactly because history is preserved. Good public policy and stronger development laws that inhibit vacant lots from sitting empty do exist. I'm curious to know what laws/policies other cities have that Edmonton lacks and how that can be changed.
Click to expand...
One big difference between Calgary and Edmonton is that they have a density transfer option that allows a land owner to 'transfer' development rights (i.e. density allowances) from a site with an unprotected heritage building under threat to a different development site, in exchange for designating the heritage building as a municipal historic resource, thereby protecting it from demolition.
 
The last thing I think of when I am downtown Edmonton is this a city with significant historical architecture. My point being architecturally too much has already been demolished and its far too gone for its identity to be attached to its history, so I say commit to full redevelopment so at least there is some consistency rather than worry about the odd building here or there that people will barely notice anyways.
 
Last edited:
Greenspace said:
^Agree, totally the opposite. 104 Street is successful in part because of the amount of historic buildings preserved. I don't love facadism but there's a reason the applicant was required to save it. The building contributes to the cultural history of Edmonton.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Even in Edmonton people seem to flock to the one area where more historic buildings were preserved. Older buildings were often built on a more human scale, have interesting design features and become local landmarks.

Any city can build new buildings and the current style is fashion somewhat generic, it could be anywhere. The more historic buildings are often what give a flavour or a unique feel to an area or a city that appeals to both visitors and residents.
 
Well my two cents on this debate, at least we have a potential project occurring on this site as compared to the many empty lots where those owners have more likely no intension to ever build on their properties. They are simply interested in waiting for a payday one day when a developer actually wants to build on that lot.
 
As long as they (land owners) earn parking revenue sufficient to pay all carrying costs there is no incentive to "hurry up and develop". But, again, Edmonton is a young city that has grown incredibly quickly and so has a few stretch marks. The blank slate of development potential thereby has enabled Edmonton the opportunity to build some amazing infrastructure (ongoing) and so the possibilities are boundless.
 
Edmcowboy11 said:
Well my two cents on this debate, at least we have a potential project occurring on this site as compared to the many empty lots where those owners have more likely no intension to ever build on their properties. They are simply interested in waiting for a payday one day when a developer actually wants to build on that lot.
Click to expand...
Yep. It’s also notable that while facadism may very well age like milk, Edmonton also has a severe issue with owners of old buildings not taking the best care of them until they all but need to be demo’d, either because they’re waiting for that aforementioned payday, or for pigs to fly, or any other multitude of reasons like willful neglect. As we’ve seen with the Brighton Block, it’s a helluva tough financial business to be in the restoration of heritage buildings, so facadism might be the best middle ground solution we get for the next while.

Not that that is necessarily the case here as the building, at least from the exterior, appears in good health. It still sucks to see a heritage building go, but alas progress can be an unforgiving mistress.
 
In one way, when thinking of preservation of a building, at what point is considered preservation and what is facadism? Using this building as an example. Having never been in this building I wonder what distinct features are there inside that deserve and need to be preserved/restored/maintained? If there isn't anything of significance that differentiates the interior to a building built in the 50's or 70's or 90's then is age the only factor we are using to say we need to preserve the building?
 
This building is the Affordable Storage facility. I've been renting a space in this building for about 15 years or so and I visit on a loose quarterly basis to store more of my stuff. I have to say I don't really see anything within the interior that needs preserving so I'm all for facadism! My only gripe is having to move my storage.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top