Saskatoon Construction

[Wyku]

Originally Posted by Ricopedra

Yes, I've always found those buildings revolting, but Saskabush's cake-taker for ugliness has got to be, I think it's called, "sun tower". (Capital letters not warrented). It's the eyesore that hides Saskatoon Tower, one of the best and only taller office buildings in the city. I think it might have been built by the same company, ironically, (the sun and Saskatoon towers). It's right next to the police station, too. It was built on an existing above ground parkade and just kept going. That, and the demolition of the old Capital Theatre are almost enough to make me cry! Are there no civic or community panals that weigh in on proposed big developments? The threat of NIMBYs in these cases would have been welcomed.

The 'sun' will also block most of the new Lighthouse....

I believe you're refering to the Sturdy Stone, which everyone agrees is an awful looking building lol.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by Wyku

I believe you're refering to the Sturdy Stone, which everyone agrees is an awful looking building lol.

I'm probably in the minority here but I'm not adverse to the Sturdy Stone. As poorly named as it is, I like if for its unique look. I think it's an unconventional piece of downtown Saskatoon's character. It's certainly the best looking parkade I've ever seen.

And Ricopedra, is the office tower you're referring to Saskatoon Square? Because yes, IMO it is the finest office tower in the city. Too bad it's coming on 30 years old and nothing's topped it since...

All photos taken by me last summer.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by studentview

If a lot of you guys had any real insight into the downtown ownership of commerical properties you would realize that pillar properties only puchased these building in the last two years..

It is true that they did not develop all of the projects they lease, but they also provide pictures of some dreadful buildings they did develop.

Originally Posted by studentview

if your goin to take a stab at pillar how bout take a shot at any of the other buildings along the whole block, midtown medical, cafe sola and dance saskatchewan are all hideous. pillar is also the group that will be spearheading the university heights retail development and i can guarantee it will be nothing short of excellent work by a couple excellent developers who know the business as well as anyone in the city.

Knowing the "bussiness" doesn't make them responsible and if any of the builders of the other ugly buildings proposes to build again, I will take a stab at them. I will withold judgement on the Pacific Avenue building until we see the final plans, but I can say that the properties they proudly display on their web pages, do not inspire confidence (I know they didn't build them all, but they are willing to take credit for them and have not made any apparent attempts to improve them, which suggests they do not see them as flawed). In addition, I agree with a previous poster that the University Heights proposal does fall short of excellent.

I honestly feel developers have a higher level of aesthetic/social responsability than other bussinesses for two reasons: 1) their work takes up public space for an extended period of time and is not easily corrected (e.g. the point made earlier about one building blocking the view of another) and 2) they trade on the image and reputation of the community as a whole (note the referrences on the Pillar website to what a great and and vibrant community Saskatoon is), so they have an obligation to contribute to the aesthetics of that community. I hope that Pillar chooses to accept that responsability.

[midnightrambler]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Pacific Ave. Project doesn't really bother me. If they're going to go ahead and build it like that, sure go ahead. It's a half decent looking 3-4 storey building. We shouldn't really be worried about 3-4 storey buildings. We have a collective distaste for 3-6 storey buildings all together, and this just fits in that category...

Rough Idea: But see now it looks better.

[joelpiecowye]

lol now it is just a tall hideous building

[kgc087]

I have to agree that there is virtually no architectural style in that building, but until the surface lot that midtown owns is developed I don't think we will see any promising architectureal gems. Atleast the design isn't stylized in a negative way, its just neutral, so it can be renovated or revamped quite easily once the area picks up.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by kgc087

I have to agree that there is virtually no architectural style in that building, but until the surface lot that midtown owns is developed I don't think we will see any promising architectureal gems. Atleast the design isn't stylized in a negative way, its just neutral, so it can be renovated or revamped quite easily once the area picks up.

or demolished

"the structure isn't tall"...meh, it will still provide a steady supply of coffee drinkers for Caffe Sola. It may have the potential to encourage the nearby hotel development to reconsider their design (add a nice restaurant or drinking establishment(bar)...perhaps a coffee house to compete with Caffe Sola).

Gotta be positive in this town...

[Ruckus]

And more positivity (for some people)...

(De)Constructing An Institution
ANGST OVER PROPOSED MENDEL MOVE UNDERSTANDABLE—BUT IT’S STILL A GOOD IDEA by Bart Gazzola



Architecture is the most abstract of art forms — because buildings house not just people and objects, but ideas. If, for example, one mentions the White House, you don’t think of just the site, but all it implies in terms of the world’s top (at this point) superpower. More broadly, the terms “university” or “hospital” generate assumptions about those places that are far more complex than simple walls and corridors.

It’s not surprising, then, that the proposed relocation/re-branding of the Mendel Art Gallery, slated to become the Art Gallery of Saskatchewan at River Landing (if all goes ahead, of course), has created a tempest in terms of public opinion. Simply put, the Mendel has been an institution in this city for decades — and rightfully so. When one talks about changing — or even more, entirely recreating — an institution, concern, condemnation and even outright antagonism are entirely understandable results.

Considering this, it’s again understandable that there have been many voices decrying the current situation as a reprisal of City Council’s misguided attempt to jam the Mendel into its latest scheme for River Landing several years ago. Still, it’s important to understand how different this situation is from that, despite what some individuals (Terry Graff, past director of the Mendel, for one) have asserted.

The presence of the Persephone Theatre on the River Landing site, for example, shows how much the landscape has changed, literally and figuratively. Clearly, integrating a new Mendel/Art Gallery of Saskatchewan complex with the theatre is an entirely different — and obviously much better — concept than the vague idea of moving the Mendel that was floated previously.

As well, the capital campaign — fundraising which was focused on renovating the current gallery building — has become “becalmed,” to quote both Vince Varga, (director of the Mendel) and Art Knight (chair of the Mendel’s board). That’s a polite way of saying that there’s no momentum: no money coming in, and therefore no chance of moving forward, at this time.

Also, the plan for renovations is already obsolete, in terms of the growth of the city: and what determines the value of a city is not condo conversions or cookie-cutter suburbs, but its cultural amenities. As such, the application of a band-aid to Saskatoon’s leading public art gallery — a band-aid that would need to be re-applied in a decade’s time — would be short-sighted, both financially and in terms of vision.


Moreover, the federal government has definitely abandoned any pretence of a “kinder, gentler” attitude to Culture (the decision to cut funding to magazines under 5,000 subscribers could spell the end of BlackFlash, Grain, and several other Saskatchewan-based magazines, for example). Clearly, to wait for them to pony up their share of the hoped-for renovation money — as the City and the Province have already done — is akin to waiting for Godot.

However, the current world economic crisis has led to federal new stimulus money — cash focused on “shovel ready projects” (yes, I know how nauseatingly overused that term has been in recent months). One can imagine how the “Art Gallery of Saskatchewan” (AGS) might appeal to those responsible for administering such a fund. The price tag is large — but so is the vision it supports. Indeed, the genuine potential for federal funding is one of the reasons why Knight has joked that “the stars are aligned” in terms of making this project a reality.

True, previous musings from the City about relocating the Mendel to River Landing weren’t much more than a misguided attempt to legitimize what was then an unfocused plan for the area. Put bluntly, that plan to move the Mendel was both not an improvement on the current site and a concept lacking in any sort of vision as to how it was to be achieved.

But that has little to do with the current situation, for the simple reason that the plan for the Art Gallery of Saskatchewan was in fact initiated by the Mendel’s board and staff. Hearing the dissenting voices, it’s amusing that they’re directed at City Council, or the mayor, with fervent assertions that the Mendel has been “misled” or is being “strong-armed.” Again, one of these voices is Terry Graff — but frankly, he doesn’t have the facts on the new plan. Moreover, Graff was a divisive figure while he was here, his departure was at least somewhat acrimonious, and he was a huge proponent of the previous renovation plan — all of which makes his dissent over the board’s newly proposed option a bit more understandable.

But let’s focus on the positive — beginning with Vince Varga, the current CEO and director of the space. Based on his vast experience, there are a lot of reasons to be confident in what the Mendel is currently proposing.

Varga was a major force in the Art Gallery of Windsor’s move from its aged home (sound familiar?) to the Devonshire Mall in that city, and leasing the former space to Casino Windsor at a tidy sum that was put toward a new, engaging gallery. Predictably, the demise of the AGW was shouted from the rooftops, but it was a stroke of genius in light of stagnant financial thinking. The rest of Varga’s resume is equally impressive, his willingness to engage critics, staff and volunteers on this plan is commendable, and he continues to be open to questions — indeed, he specifically asked that this point be included, when we spoke of the AGS plan.

Need more? Well, board chair Art Knight has experience that includes nearly three decades at the University of Saskatchewan — and he was adamant that the AGS will not be “an art mall.” It will be a “purpose built space, to create [the] best possible circumstances to see art.” On this, Varga and Knight were unified, solid and uncompromising.

So, what of that proposed new space? According to the proposed plans, the new AGS will have triple the space for galleries, but also a proper vault, spaces for public programming and all the things that are needed to attract significant exhibitions — both from here and abroad. In short, a proper gallery of the type Saskatoon deserves — and one that the current Mendel space, even with extensive renovation, wouldn’t be able to match.

Finally, much has been made of the “slap in the face” to the Mendel family. I’ve sung their praises over the original bequest, the vision of Fred Mendel (and Sid Buckwold), and also his role inciting philanthropy in others. As such, it’s only right that Varga and Knight say the original Mendel gift will be on permanent display in the new gallery, in a space named specifically for the man, as a testament to his generosity. That’s better than letting it sit in a vault, due to lack of space or unsafe climate — and one would postulate that to do nothing is not something Mendel himself would have supported.

In terms of renaming the gallery as a whole, Knight said simply that this project will be relying heavily on the people of Saskatchewan, so it should be more inclusive in its name — it’s their space, and about their experience of the art.

Overall, let’s not confuse any distaste with the City with the plan put forth by Varga and Knight: this is their plan, not the City’s, not the mayor’s and not that of a developer who may want to plant a tower on the roof. If Saskatoon wishes to be a real city in ways other than rental costs and crime rates, we must invest in our cultural wellbeing — both financially and with some faith. This plan is audacious and bold, and deserves to be supported as such.

Source

[Ruckus]

What a great article, wow...where do I sign?

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by Ruckus

(De)Constructing An Institution
ANGST OVER PROPOSED MENDEL MOVE UNDERSTANDABLE—BUT IT’S STILL A GOOD IDEA by Bart Gazzola

[Ruckus]

Developer, councillors question St. Mary plan
Confusion arose between school board, city, groups suggest
By Janet French, The StarPhoenixApril 23, 2009

A non-profit developer presented the City of Saskatoon and Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools with an option that would have saved the St. Mary School building, made room for a new school and provided park space for students.

Meanwhile, at least once city councillor says it's not too late to reopen the Pleasant Hill revitalization concept plan if a developer comes forward with the money and the drive to reuse St. Mary.

Len Usiskin, manager of Quint Development Corp., said the organization was one of four non-profit developers who initially answered the city's call for expressions of interest in the revitalization of Pleasant Hill, which the city and school division wanted to include affordable housing units, a new St. Mary school, less traffic and more park space.

When Quint heard the concerns about park space, the developer proposed building new housing on three, not four, of the parcels up for grabs and renovating an empty St. Mary School into 20 suites.

"You achieve all the same outcomes," Usiskin said. "And it's not a radical departure from the city (concept plan)."

In November 2007, city council opted to extend the deadline for expressions of interest after all four applications for housing developments came from non-profit organizations.

Alan Wallace, the city's manager of neighbourhood planning, says the city wanted a mix of affordable and fair market housing, and none of those proposals met that requirement.

Usiskin said city administrators told him if Quint had ideas about reusing St. Mary, it should raise them with the Catholic school board.

On Nov. 29 that year, Quint and the Children's Discovery Museum wrote to Catholic school trustees, proposing to purchase and redevelop St. Mary School. The museum wanted to set up shop in the gym and Quint presented an architect's drawings showing suites where classrooms are now.

The proposal would have required some adjustment from the concept plan approved by city council in June 2007. Usiskin said Quint was told to wait for a call for requests for proposals on the old building.

A call for proposals never came.

"Why, after two consultations where the community clearly identified they wanted to save the school, did the city come out with a master plan . . . with the school demolished?" Usiskin asks. "When we came forward with an alternative use, it wasn't even considered."

Usiskin said Quint's proposal for St. Mary was bounced between the city and Catholic school division until he was told it was too late to salvage the 1913 building.

Lenore Swystun of the Saskatoon Heritage Society said that organization got the same treatment when it tried to advocate the building be sold and reused.

"You can't nail any of them down," Swystun said. "It's hilarious. . . . It's like an Abbott and Costello skit."

Don Lloyd, superintendent of administrative services for the school division, says when Quint wrote to the board in November 2007, he thought it was purely for the board's information as an update to Quint's proposal to the city.

"Our understanding is, we weren't really dealing with a proposal," Lloyd said.

Furthermore, the proposal stretched beyond the school onto surrounding land, which the school board doesn't control, Lloyd said.

Catholic school board chair Diane Boyko also points out the footprint of the planned new St. Mary school has grown. She says the board wanted green space behind the new school, not in front as Quint's plan showed.

"We think we handled the letter appropriately, in that it went to the city," she said.

The division never asked for proposals on the old St. Mary building, Lloyd said, because the city's concept plan for Pleasant Hill has green space pencilled in where the school now sits. However, the Catholic school board did not approve the concept plan until much later, in December 2008.

Coun. Pat Lorje, whose ward includes Pleasant Hill, believes it is not too late to change plans for the school building. If a detailed study shows the building is solid and a developer with the funds is interested, a proposal should be given serious consideration, she said.

"I think the timing is very tight and it would have to happen right away," Lorje said. "If there's an outside chance, I think it should be looked at."

Coun. Charlie Clark says it was a "mistake" for council not to study options using the old school for housing or office space.

"I regret that we didn't explore that question further when this first concept plan came forward," he said.

He also acknowledges there was "confusion in the process," especially about "whose role is what in keeping the school."

"If there's a way to reuse the building -- adaptively reuse it as housing -- we should pursue any avenue we can," he said.

Boyko said despite a plea earlier this week from the Saskatoon Heritage Society, the school board stands by its choice to demolish the school and is not re-opening the concept plan.

At least one other developer and a building owner had talked about making a bid for St. Mary as partners.

Dave Denny, co-owner of the Drinkle No. 3 building, and general manager of Pelican Properties, along with green developer Curtis Olson had a year ago talked about the building's potential.

Both stopped looking into it when city administrators told them it was too late and St. Mary was heading for demolition.

"The city took a very firm stand in not showing any willingness," Olson said.

Still, Denny says he "can't quit thinking about" the potential the building has.

"I think all the players are trying to do the right thing," Denny says of the revitalization.

"It just seems to me that there is a way we could cheaply achieve all these things without wasting that beautiful old school."

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix

Source

____________________________

Adaptive reuse best for old school
By Lenore Swystun, Special to The Star Phoenix April 23, 2009

Following is the viewpoint of the writer, president of the Saskatoon Heritage Society.

The Saskatoon Heritage Society has supported and continues to support the Pleasant Hill revitalization project that includes the construction of a new community school.

We applaud the efforts of the Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools Board, the City of Saskatoon and the provincial government to make this happen. Our delegation made this clear in its April 20 presentation to the school board.

St. Mary Community School, built in 1913, is Saskatoon's oldest operating Catholic school. It was designed by local architect David Webster. Though demolition has never been debated or voted on at a public meeting of city council or the school board, the current plan is to demolish the building to create green space for the new school.

A March 2006 planning study commissioned by the Catholic division found that, while the building isn't accessible and requires electrical and mechanical systems upgrades, it remains structurally sound and said demolition was not contemplated.

This is not an issue of either/or: It is simply about asking for consideration of a conversation between the school board and the city to see about the possibility of adaptive re-use. The existing school would not impact upon or impede the building of any of the various projects already planned. We have precedent with successfully taking a closed school and incorporating it back into the community -- Albert School in Nutana.

The preservation of St. Mary Community School has been identified as a key desire of the surrounding community in many consultation efforts by the city, through both the Pleasant Hill Local Area Plan and the Pleasant Hill Revitalization Plan. On Dec. 2, 2006, city and school officials hosted a visioning and design workshop for residents. Unfortunately, without the knowledge of participants who asked that the school be saved, the option to retain the building had been taken off the table already.

The most economical method to preserve the school is through its adaptive reuse. This strategy falls under several current civic policies, including the waste and recycling plan, greenhouse gas management plan, civic heritage, and affordable housing, as well as the imminent review of the development plan.

Additionally, it is our understanding that there are several ongoing new provincial policy initiatives that might apply to the adaptive reuse of the school, including the affordable housing policy, environmental policies and programs, cultural policy, and a new model for economic development under Enterprise Saskatchewan.

Given the above, we believe it is incumbent that additional time be given to consider the potential implications for these policies in demolishing the building.

We also feel it important to clarify some inaccuracies contained in the article, Group looks to save school building (SP, Apr. 22).

The SHS has indeed made its views known to the city, the Catholic schools and broader community on a number of occasions. We made inquiries in 2007 to the city and school officials because we were concerned that the proposed concept plan showed green space where the school currently sits.

On Jan. 21, 2008, SHS representatives met with city planner Alan Wallace, the school division's superintendent of administrative services, Don Lloyd, and architects Dave Edwards and James McEwen to discuss the new St. Mary Community School project. Details of the meeting were included in two reports received by the Catholic school board: New St. Mary's Community School Consultation and Planning Study (February 2008) and St. Mary's Wellness and Education Centre: A New Model of Learning ... A New Brand of School (March 2009).

Heritage society board member Margaret Hendry advocated for the preservation of the school at the Feb. 6, 2008, meeting of the city's heritage advisory committee that was attended by Wallace.

A letter dated May 28, 2008, was sent to both Lloyd and Wallace. Letters to the editor from SHS board members Georgiana Chartier and Victoria Neufeldt were published in the SP on May 29 and June 5, 2008, respectively.

As a non-profit charitable organization, the SHS is dedicated to the preservation of buildings, neighbourhoods and sites in Saskatoon which are of historical and aesthetic value. The Society also encourages Saskatonians to take an active interest in the history of their city.

© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix

Source

[Ricopedra]

Sorry to backtrack to the 'hideous building' vein, but no, I wasn't thinking of the Sturdy Stone centre. BTW, thanks a million for the pics, Country! (post #472). Now if you look at the first pic, you'll see the tower I think is the best in Sask - yes, Saskatoon Square, with Sasktel on top. Then to the left, you see the SSC. These two actually work well together. The top window slits of Sturdy mimic the clean window-lines of Sask Square. But the piece of shite I was referring to is RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE!!! That thing is a complete money grab, built on a previously EXISTING parkade! The Sturdy Stone was conceived from the ground up.

Oh, and when I was growing up, the Mendel was always one of my favorite places to go and enjoy the art, the riverbank, the silence - and ohhh: those banana trees! It seemed like a miracle, nestled there in the snow. :>) Maybe that's why I've got one in my back yard now!?...

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by Ricopedra

t the piece of shite I was referring to is RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE!!! That thing is a complete money grab, built on a previously EXISTING parkade!

Okay, now I understand. Thanks for clarifying.... it definitely is a piece of shite!

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by Ricopedra

...

Oh, and when I was growing up, the Mendel was always one of my favorite places to go and enjoy the art, the riverbank, the silence - and ohhh: those banana trees! It seemed like a miracle, nestled there in the snow. :>) Maybe that's why I've got one in my back yard now!?...

You have what in your back yard? a bannana tree? an Art Gallery? a river bank? I'm intrigued.

[socialisthorde]

WRT St Mary's School. I know these heritage people sometimes get on about silly things, but I think it would be a real shame to tear down that school. It seems to me that something like the children's museum would be a huge boost to that neighborhood, and to the residents' sense that they are truly on the city's radar. Nice market condos in a buidling like that would also likely appeal to younger artistic types which might help to rejuvenate the neighborhood somewhat as it has in Caswell and is starting to do in Riversdale.

If it is a choice btween redeveloping the school or having green space, I would side with redeveloping the school. While green space is great and vitally important, we all know that in neighborhoods such as Pleasant Hill, green space tends to get neglected and typically becomes more of a haven for less savoury activities (e.g. drug use, prostitution, graffitti) than it does for the intended purposes. I think it is important to help the neighborhood rejuvenate first, then think about parks.

[kgc087]

I completely agree with the adaptive reuse of the school. It would be a travesty to see this school torn down. Adaptive reuse is innovative and rejuvinating. While I lived in Calgary, two old schools were being renovated and retrofitted for a condo tower to be built beside them. I thought this really preserved the atmosphere of the neighbourhood, even though it was downtown, and it really preserves the culture of the city. Many people don't realise that without the proper facilities or even people within a neighbourhood, specific amenities will just be abused or neglected. By readapting this school to say high end condos would introduce a new group of people into the neighbourhood which would begin the rejuvination process.

[skyhigh953]

I agree that the new Pillar building is not an architectural masterpiece, but we need to remember, developers build buildings for one main reason...MONEY. More money spent on architectural design and materials means less profit for them. If you were the developer, and had the choice between spending half a million dollars on making the building look a little bit better or ensuring your company at least breaks even on the project, which would you chose?
I would rather see that there instead of a gravel parking lot for the next 20 years...

And the site plan for University Heights, can anyone really say they expected anything else? I would have liked to see them take advantage of the new zoning allowing taller residential... but I am glad to see a four storey hotel on the site instead of all single-storey strip mall.

Unfortunately, Saskatoon does not yet have the population and business mass to ensure the majority of new developments are designed to high architectural standards.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by skyhigh953

I agree that the new Pillar building is not an architectural masterpiece, but we need to remember, developers build buildings for one main reason...MONEY. More money spent on architectural design and materials means less profit for them. If you were the developer, and had the choice between spending half a million dollars on making the building look a little bit better or ensuring your company at least breaks even on the project, which would you chose?
...

I think that you are creating a "straw man". I never said they should lose money, and I highly doubt that they couldn't do better and still make a profit. Quality does not always cost more and often the only reason for not achieving it is laziness, or lack of care. I am arguing that they have some obligation to care and do their best, whether that is "economically rational" (i.e. maximizees profit) or not, because we are sharing a public good with them. I could cut many corners in my work and probably make more money for less work, but I choose not to and I am sure most people are the same. We should demand (or at least ask) as much from developers.

[lbird]

The huge Luther Heights care home is adding 'intermediate care' units on the end of Alexandria Street.



The schizophrenic nature of North Park, which I talked about in my last post, reflected in the varying state of homes on the same street mere blocks apart, first, 33rd, second Spadina Crescent.









New pedestrian underpass under the Circle Drive Bridge, with mural by Scyap.







Looking across the river at the Luther Heights care home, Archibald Park and the newly expanded Circle Drive Bridge.

[Kelly Patrick]

That would be my ideal. That someone somewhere measured the true need of a new gallery in Saskatoon and made something spectacular, to size. Just like the original Mendel. This is what I know. We do not need a gallery three times larger than the Mackenzie as proposed. Saskatoon does not have an art community that great and if we spend 50 million now, how much do taxpayers want to spend each and every year thereafter to maintain the building and staffing levels. My biggest fear is that they build some huge ugly concrete slab that is empty most of the time because we can't afford exhibits. That would be an injustice. Secondly, it is so stupid and unfair to call it the Saskatchewan Art Gallery because both the (Fred) Mendel and the (Norm) Mackenize in Regina, were named after individuals who supported and created the art communities in both cities respectively. Regina has every right as well to be a part of the Saskatchewan art community and Saskatoon has no right to claim such a ridiculous moniker that other provinces have. Let's be really different. Probably too much to ask.

Most government bureaucrats in Saskatchewan don't even know what the Guggenheim on 5th Ave is. It was not government that pushed for art galleries in Saskatchewan in the fifties and sixties and there is no way that Conservative governments can stand true to their party convictions by stepping in, unnecessarily, demanding to put a socialist name on a building, just because they put ridiculous amounts of taxpayers dollars into something so a Mayor of a city can save his ass because all the hype was just that. As well, municipal pencil pushers don't know the arts. God, this city just allowed drinking in 8th street restaurants in the 70's.

Lastly, there is talk that LakePlacid is rethinking EVERYTHING and hence we have to fill the gap. The problem is, when politics and private sector development are mixed up with changing politicians, political parties and taxpayers dollars that must be spent in the fiscal year - usually before an election - things don't turn out the way one thought. I also heard that certain people in town, who are supposedly donating to the new gallery, wanted nothing to do with the existing Mendel and its proposed expansion. Donors want their good (?) names to be associated with something new and big. Give me a break. This is Saskatoon. The hot air is overwhelming.

So with that, I support a new gallery but within reason; a room dedicated to the Mendel family which exhibits the 13 pieces, including the Picasso, the Rodin, the Lindners, and the Group of Seven that were donated originally by the Mendel family; the atrium at the existing gallery stay put; and the young guy who runs the Mendel bistro and makes the best damn espresso in town is given first dibs at the new space.

See you all back here in five years and we can compare hysteria with reality.........In the meantime I will post photos of Getty from LA and from MOMA, the MET and Guggenheim when I get back from New York in two weeks.......... Thanks guys for the chat.