Demolition application in for Brewery site in Inglewood

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Just got back from the meeting, it was P A C K E D.

so?

[h0twired]

I think people should reserve judgement until after the plans for the site are revealed.

[Wooster]

^ Well demolition permits have been submitted, which deserves some judgement.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by h0twired

I think people should reserve judgement until after the plans for the site are revealed.

No plans have been revealed, the owner has not responded to any communications, and at the meeting last night Joe Ceci revealed that the owner told him that he has no plans for the site other than the demolition.

[DizzyEdge]

What do you think should be done with the former Calgary Brewery site in Inglewood?

This will likely only be up today, so check the front page of CTV and vote in the poll!

http://calgary.ctv.ca/

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

No plans have been revealed, the owner has not responded to any communications, and at the meeting last night Joe Ceci revealed that the owner told him that he has no plans for the site other than the demolition.

Was the reasons for demolition metioned at all? Is he attempting to prevent a liability issue by demolishing the old buildings? Doesn't make sense to knock them down simply for the sake of it, as it would be costly.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

Was the reasons for demolition metioned at all? Is he attempting to prevent a liability issue by demolishing the old buildings? Doesn't make sense to knock them down simply for the sake of it, as it would be costly.

This I believe is what his reasoning is.

[DizzyEdge]

Another Poll at CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...n-meeting.html

[Medicineline]

I'ts possible the owner wants to make the property more salable. It may be worth more without the building than with.

[korzym]

Are you guys serious? You think the owner is going to make the worst decision no matter what? He's got millions at stake, obviously he's going to do what he can to increase the value of his property. Let's be honest, the current condition is such a dump you can't go wrong with new development.

Your pretty big hypocrites to always be whining about NIMBYs and here you are coming in and telling someone what to do with their property

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by korzym

Your pretty big hypocrites to always be whining about NIMBYs and here you are coming in and telling someone what to do with their property

It's not like people can actually ever do 'whatever they want' with their property. We have zoning, urban design rules, density restrictions, use restrictions, height restrictions, setback requirements, open space requirements, building codes etc etc etc. Should the public not have the right to any of these requirements either? We have these things to ensure the public good. Something of real heritage value also has a public good, which does deserve consideration for preservation where possible. It's worth giving the issue light and pushing toward a solution that can be a win-win for the developer and the larger public. It's not nimbyism, nor hypocritical.

[bob1954]

Looks like more restrictions than incentives to build! I would think it would be less restrictions..... sorry, wrong thread!

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by korzym

Are you guys serious? You think the owner is going to make the worst decision no matter what? He's got millions at stake, obviously he's going to do what he can to increase the value of his property. Let's be honest, the current condition is such a dump you can't go wrong with new development.

Your pretty big hypocrites to always be whining about NIMBYs and here you are coming in and telling someone what to do with their property

I'm assuming you'd be fine if someone built an oil refinery or abattoir right next to your house, I mean.. people should be able to do what they want with their valuable property right?

Also, please let us know the details you know of the site's current condition, it would be very useful to get the detailed survey info you have that others do not.

[O-tacular]

Sober second thought on losing a brewery
Paula Arab, Calgary Herald: Thursday, July 23, 2009
You don't have to be drunk on sentiment to realize Calgary's oldest brewery is overflowing with heritage value worth saving.

It's only thanks to the intervention of Alberta Cultural Minister Lindsay Blackett that the owner's application to demolish a majority of the buildings on the former Molson brewery site has been stopped, at least for now.

Blackett used the authority of the provincial heritage act to order a historic assessment of the 117-year-old site that had a crucial role in this city's early industrial development.

Rarely does the province use its power to override an owner's wishes. The mere fact Blackett is willing to do so indicates all that could be lost if this once-prominent landmark is allowed to be bulldozed.

One doesn't need a historic assessment to understand how it is significant to Calgary and Alberta.

"Let me count the ways," says the city's senior heritage planner, Darryl Cariou.

"It's a really important part of the community's history. People still have attachment to the site. Either their fathers or grandfathers worked there."

The three-hectare property in the city's east end began its life as the Calgary Brewing and Malting Company, opening in 1893, the year after prohibition was repealed. It was Alberta's first brewery and an instant success.

A. E. Cross was the founder, himself an important rancher and one of the city's first modern industrialists. The brewery was one of the first industrial users of natural gas in the West. It survived another prohibition era, between 1916 and 1923, and the Great Depression. By 1961, it was finally sold to Canadian Breweries. Its most recent incarnation was producing Molson beer until 1994.

The future? Fuzzy. The current owner refuses to discuss his plans. Calgary financier Ron Mathison has failed to meet with the community or talk with the press. The only indication of what is planned can be found on the application for permission to demolish a number of key buildings.

Nor has he responded to the minister's request for an assessment.

It's shaping up to be quite the brawl. Or a showdown, at the very least.

Blackett could well be pushed into a corner.

Technically, if Blackett deems the site is of sufficient historical significance to the province, and its preservation is in the public interest, he can have it designated a historic resource. That means the owner can't alter anything--not even replace a broken window --without adhering to a strict set of rules and regulations.

Such designation gives the building the necessary protection it would need to ensure its preservation.

The city can't designate a heritage site without offering compensation to the owner, which makes it difficult to achieve without the owner's consent.

The province, however, can.

Let's hope it doesn't reach that point. Still, it's refreshing to see someone in power stand up to save old buildings, recognizing that their esthetic value is deeper than monetary.

We have allowed far too many beautiful relics of our history to be ripped down so that condos and towers could be erected in their place, all so that a quick buck could be made.

The brewery site would be an ideal combination retail/residential project. Whatever grants that are available should be provided to conserve the buildings. As well, the city must co-operate in rezoning the land for mixed uses, and clearing the bureaucratic hurdles that usually stand in the way of such projects.

If done properly, this heritage development has the potential to offer far more value in the end to everyone, including the owner. It's not always measured in dollar value.

Take Toronto's Distillery District, now known as the hippest neighbourhood in the city. It is a potential model for how the Inglewood brewery site could be redeveloped. The 13-acre space in Toronto's downtown is now home to the largest collection of Victorian-era industrial architecture in North America. It houses numerous restaurants, trendy cafes, retail space and cultural art space, all within 10 blocks. It also still brews beer for the enjoyment of the consuming public. The area is quite the mecca for tourists, locals and artists alike. It's a huge draw for the film industry, which refers to it as Hollywood North. Countless blockbuster movies, television shows, commercials and music videos are filmed there.

That same potential exists in Calgary. We could call it the Brewery Block.

Or, better yet, a return to the name of the community once known as Brewery Flats.

Some say a brewery will never reopen on the site. Perhaps not on the scale of Molson, but possibly a small microbrewery with a retail component?

Put it in the 1905 Brew House that was designed by Bernard Barthel, a well-known Chicago architect of breweries throughout North America.

He visited Calgary in 1904 and provided the design for a new brew house. It reflects his simple and functional style, enormous windows, lack of embellishment and emphasis upon natural lighting. Yet, that building is one of a number slated for demolition.

Calgarians need to give this sober thought, and fight to save this forgotten treasure.

parab@theherald.canwest.com

At least the media is on the right side on this issue.

[Fiveway]

Global just did a one-sided bit that basically talked about how neglected the place is and how much of a danger that is to the community. Here's the most quotable bit "...too old to keep."

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Fiveway

Global just did a one-sided bit that basically talked about how neglected the place is and how much of a danger that is to the community. Here's the most quotable bit "...too old to keep."

Err, that's one way of viewing it.

They also pointed out how the majority of the site (the smokestack, the largest and most visible buildings) are going to be saved, regardless. The owner wants to demolish a few of the worse off buildings. The ones that may be beyond repair.

Then again, if this gets heritage recognition the province pays for the restore anyway, so just WAIT until the public finds out about millions of tax dollars being spent on restoring old buildings.

[Ferreth]

From Calgary Herald, July 29, 2009, 4:14pm:

CALGARY- Some of the century-old Calgary Brewery’s original sandstone facade and timber columns are still standing and in decent or better-than-decent condition, but the owner’s company warns that erosion, moisture and neglect mean the buildings will likely fall apart themselves unless they’re demolished first.

After weeks of silence from site owner Ron Mathison — and criticism from Inglewood residents and heritage advocates — a hired consultant led reporters and cameras on a tour of the buildings he wants to tear down, some of which date to the brewery’s 1892 opening.

Mathison, a leading Calgary financier, still has no plans for using the unused portion of the brewery grounds after the proposed demolition, said consultant Eileen Stan. But he’s worried the buildings pose a safety risk, and must be torn down.

The provincial government has halted the demolition bid by ordering a historic resource impact assessment, which will determine whether the buildings have enough structural integrity and heritage value to require preservation.

But to argue the case to the public, Mathison’s consultant showed off the site’s good, bad and ugly.

In the 1905 ale house, snow collapsed part of the roof last winter and concrete debris still lay all over. Parts of the 1892 ale house seemed sturdy, with wood columns and caps still holding, but others were decaying and steel beams had to prop up the ceilings.

“The wood timbers are basically just rotting away,” Stan told reporters in the dank, unlit brew house.

“Some of this is water damage, and some of this is time.”

Mathison bought the brewery site in a 2000 bankruptcy auction, six years after Molson closed the plant that had been making Calgary Beer for generations. When he acquired it, at least one of buildings had been unheated for years.

Various brewing firms that owned it expanded the site by constructing buildings right up against other buildings, meaning that if they demolish one weakened structure, some other adjacent ones must come down with it. Several 50- and 100-year-old buildings will remain standing under the demolition plans, including the old smokestack.

Ald. Joe Ceci, who has also toured the site, said it’s tough for non-experts to judge the site’s structural integrity upon touring its dark rooms, without understanding what can and can’t be preserved.

“Without that information here, we’re just casting our eyes at peeling paint and crumbling walls saying, ‘Euugghh, that’s terrible,’” the ward’s alderman said.

However, he said that with enough money, any site can likely be preserved. He hopes the owner redevelops the site as with residences and commercial developments that incorporate some of the existing heritage architecture.

Mathison does lease out some of the buildings on-site to a wine shop, offices and a storage company, but the buildings he wants demolished have been long vacant.

Stan said Mathison has already spent around $1 million to keep the buildings from collapsing, and would spend another $1 million to do the complex demolition, which includes careful removal of giant brew tanks.

I'm waiting to see what the historic resource impact assessment has to say about the proposed demolition. I know a couple of people who were working in the brewery up until it closed, and they both echo this tour's observation that there is a lot of historic value that has been altered beyond saving already, and/or is too run down to save.

[ummagumma66]

I'd like them to actually use it, thing I want torn down is the Blackfoot Truckstop. we need a grocery store in that end of Inglewood, and besides I'm tired of the "lot lizards" using the bus stop as their own personal shelter.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Fiveway

Global just did a one-sided bit that basically talked about how neglected the place is and how much of a danger that is to the community. Here's the most quotable bit "...too old to keep."

Yes it's a great showcase of how well Matco investments maintains it's properties.

[DizzyEdge]

by the way, re: too rundown to save, too old to keep:

Before:




After: