Land Titles Building Restoration | ?m | 2s | Province of Alberta | Group2

I love the history of this building, and it's (kinda bizarre) relevance to Edmonton's growth. I'm really excited to see it fully restored, inside and out.
I was going by there today and i noticed the flat-roofed portion is being rebuilt. just the south end, which was looking really rough before. I was suprised to see how it is being rebuilt, using 8" CMU and 2 rows of historic brick, laid up all together as a monolithic wall some 16" thick. I thought this setup, particularly the lack of a modern rainscreen/air gap, really odd, and I guess it's gonna be insulated inside? i also noticed that the original roof structure (steel and concrete slab, with wooden furring and decking overtop) being retained, even over the new walls.
My puzzlement, i guess, is how extensively is the building being rebuilt/restored? The retention of the original roof, even when the walls that support it are being replaced, and the used of unusual monolithic masonry walls instead of modern insulated walls with masonry veneer, seem really involved (and expensive). That being said, if the intention is to retain the integrity of the building and keep it as historically accurate as possible (chilly thick masonry walls and all) what's being done makes sense. Does anyone know what the plans are for this building, is it supposed to come out of this work in it's 1910-whenever state, museum-ready?
IMG_8961.JPG
IMG_8959.JPG
IMG_8959.JPG
 
^ What bugs me most is the orientation of the new addition. I know the intent is to keep the two parts as distinct as possible (and this is hard to articulate, so bare with me) but it doesn't really work having the addition run lengthwise from east to west, mirroring the original building. I find because of that, along with the new roof being pitched — yet gabled instead of hipped — and the use of brick — yet a different colour — the two parts almost compete for attention because they are so distinct, yet so similar. There might be a perfectly valid practical reason for the decision that I'm unaware of, but from a purely design perspective I feel that simply having the new addition be a rectangle extending south from the old (so the two come together to form a "T" shape as opposed to the almost "I" like shape it has now) would've alleviated this.

However, this is a pretty minor quibble in the grand scheme of things. I'm just happy to see one of the province's oldest brick buildings getting the love it deserves.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top