Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[s4.audios]

Great shots especially MacEwan. I assume the exterior glass will extend out to connect the two structures. So the break between the two structures getting built will be like an atrium? Or is this the area that will have a web of stairs I faintly remember seeing.

[Daveography]

Thanks, all.

^ There was steel being erected in the atrium between the buildings, though might be hard to see in the photos. I believe it will be enclosed if I recall from the renderings.

ETA: Here's the latest render showing it will be a contiguous, glass-clad building:

Source: MacEwan.ca

ETA2: It's a little sad looking back at the original Bing Thom renders. While I do like the way it's turning out now, the original design was so much better.

Anyone downtown that thought they heard thunder a little while ago, it was a pair of CF-18s doing a flyover. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/e...jets-to-honour-cold-lake-pilot-1.3313955

[Xelebes]

Saw the CF-18s fly directly over our office in the southside.

[Harrij]

I actually think the new MacEwan building is looking better than the render, which makes me not miss the first design so much.

[Harrison]

Well this is unfortunate...

Edmonton's historic Sylvancroft residence a step closer to demolition

DAN BARNES, EDMONTON JOURNAL

Edmonton’s historic Sylvancroft residence is nearer the wrecking ball after city council’s executive committee Tuesday decided it won’t oppose a developer’s plan to demolish the three-storey heritage home on Stony Plain Road.

Coun. Scott McKeen said the city had asked for a stay on Beljan Development’s demolition application, but will no longer stand in the way of the company’s plans to build one or two condos on the estate property, which is the largest of nine lots in its Sylvancroft infill community.

http://edmontonjournal.com/business/loca...ft-residence-a-step-closer-to-demolition

[mcc16]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ What's the point of comparing El Mirador to buildings that we don't have and have never had? We can't save what doesn't exist in our city, but we can at least try to save the little pieces of uniqueness that we do have, before we have none left at all.

My point is that it's actually a joke that anyone thinks the mirador is worth saving... I'm sure there's multiple taco bells that we can slap a historical designation on instead so that this prime land can be developed without the need to incorporate a joke of a building. yes it's unique to the area but come on..... Perigrine point is unique too.............. I try to be as open minded as possible to respecting other people's opinion but I just don't understand how anyone can find this worth saving. If you really miss it once it's gone you can go hang out on Europa Blvd. I'm sure you'll find that architecture equally stunning.

[Daveography]

^ No need to make glib comments like that just because we have a difference of opinion on the matter. There's no comparison to Perigrine Point or WEM, so again, why bother trying to make one?

Many people didn't think the old BMO building was worth saving. Many others did.
Many people didn't think the Central Pentacostal was worth saving. Many others did.
Many people don't think Sylvancroft is worth saving. Many others do.
Many people don't think El Mirador is worth saving. Many others do.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

And to jump to Ken's point, people didn't think the Tegler, Carnegie Library, old court house, etc weren't worth saving back then for various reasons.

[SHOFEAR]

Weird shit makes places more interesting. Mirador is certainly weird and would be a welcomed part of what will otherwise be a sterile street with no character.

[s4.audios]

Seriously you guys are not understanding this is a point of view on one specific building where myself and mcc16 do not believe it is worth saving. mcc16 is just pointing out El-Mirador as an example of how many are jumping on EVERY old building to be considered historical designation when they truly do not deserve it. I am all over saving practically every BRICK building in the UW district that is an actually representation of the district and add A LOT of character to the area. El-Mirador just doesn't cut it!! I could honestly say I haven't even noticed or realized this building even existed until this year where I seen people on SSP and C2E talk about it.

^and what part of tearing down this building make this a sterile street?? We don't even know what the development will look like. What if the street interaction will turn out into something like on 104th with the icons?

Anyways, agree to disagree.

[Daveography]

^ I understand your position and mcc16's position perfectly, I just disagree with that position as much as you disagree with mine.

What I don't appreciate is the glib tone with which you guys are trying to debate this, like anyone who disagrees is some kind of idiot that doesn't understand architecture.

[Baronmine]

Originally Posted by mcc16

My point is that it's actually a joke that anyone thinks the mirador is worth saving... I'm sure there's multiple taco bells that we can slap a historical designation on instead so that this prime land can be developed without the need to incorporate a joke of a building. yes it's unique to the area but come on..... Perigrine point is unique too.............. I try to be as open minded as possible to respecting other people's opinion but I just don't understand how anyone can find this worth saving. If you really miss it once it's gone you can go hang out on Europa Blvd. I'm sure you'll find that architecture equally stunning.

As I mentioned earlier, people live in this building, including myself. Why should I give up my home of 11 years, (others 25 years) without a fight? I know it's only a matter of time, but not just yet.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by mcc16

You're comparing tegler and Carnegie to mirador? ...

Originally Posted by s4.audios

Haha I was going to say the exact thing. There are buildings in the UW District I am 100% behind not touching; El Mirador is not one of them.

For what it's worth, I don't know what Yaletown used to be like but I airbnb'd there for a week last year and absolutely loved it. Exactly what I envision UW to be like in a couple decades.

i wasn't comparing the tegler or the carnegie to mirador.

i was comparing the attitude and approach that says "this - whatever this happens to be in the current discussion - is not worth saving because it's not the best example, it doesn't really represent edmonton or edmonton's history and there are much better examples of what this is elsewhere so there's no point in saving ours our trying to integrate it or repurpose it rather than lose it".

[s4.audios]

If people actually had this attitude about the Tegler or Carnegie they must have been completely delusional.

Nah I think people just didn't give sh*t back then.

[itom 987]

I'm surprised to see people fighting to save a building that has an exterior made of stucco. Stucco boxes can be cheaply replicated in a new building, brick on the other hand is expensive.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by Harrison

Well this is unfortunate...

Edmonton's historic Sylvancroft residence a step closer to demolition

DAN BARNES, EDMONTON JOURNAL

Edmonton’s historic Sylvancroft residence is nearer the wrecking ball after city council’s executive committee Tuesday decided it won’t oppose a developer’s plan to demolish the three-storey heritage home on Stony Plain Road.

Coun. Scott McKeen said the city had asked for a stay on Beljan Development’s demolition application, but will no longer stand in the way of the company’s plans to build one or two condos on the estate property, which is the largest of nine lots in its Sylvancroft infill community.

http://edmontonjournal.com/business/loca...ft-residence-a-step-closer-to-demolition

I guess I am in the best position to provide additional information on this given my involvement on this project from day 1. Reality is that we did more than what many other developers would have done as most would have submitted a demolition permit the day after they closed on the land. We didn't. We planned around the mansion and designed it so that it would be a focal point for the community. We purposely aligned the new road so that it was the first house you saw when you entered the community. We even named the development after the name of the mansion. Councillor McKeen's comments stating that we deliberately planned it to fail are grossly inaccurate and false. I am not sure what more any one else could have done.

Fact is that we made a verbal commitment to retain the house (for more than 4 years) in the hopes of finding a suitable buyer who would be prepared to take on the risk and costs of renovating the house. One of the biggest factors against the house was its size. At over 8000sf it would have been a daunting task to bring it up to a livable standard. There also is not much inside the house either, its very underwhelming. The previous owners also let it fall into disrepair over the decades. The interior was demised and at one time it looked as if it was used as an apartment or rooming house.

Now it is time to move forward. I will let our track record of designating other historical buildings such as the Crawford Block and soon the Hulbert Block (Block 1912 cafe building) speak for itself.

[Baronmine]

Originally Posted by itom 987

I'm surprised to see people fighting to save a building that has an exterior made of stucco. Stucco boxes can be cheaply replicated in a new building, brick on the other hand is expensive.

It's brick and concrete under the stucco.
The first phase of the building is from 1932.
The Annex is from the early 1950s, and is wood under the stucco.

"Recognizing its significance to the citys built heritage, El Mirador is on the A list of the Register of Historic Resources in Edmonton. Any plan to dramatically change or demolish the structure must first be brought to a vote of Edmonton City Council." (yegishome.ca)

http://yegishome.ca/news/2004/08/05/a-touch-of-spain-in-edmonton

[itom 987]

What did the building look like back in 1932? Did it have a visible brick facade that was covered up as part of the renovation in the '50s?

[itom 987]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

I guess I am in the best position to provide addition information on this given my involvement in this project from day 1. Reality is that we did more than what many other developers would have done as most would have submitted a demolition permit the day after they closed on the land. We didn't. We planned around the mansion and designed it so that it would be a focal point in the community. We purposely aligned the new road so that it was the first house you saw when you entered the community. We even named the development after the name of the mansion. Councillor McKeen's comments stating that we deliberately planned it to fail are grossly inaccurate and false. I am not sure what more any one else could have done.

Fact is that we made a verbal commitment to retain the house (for more than 4 years) in the hopes of finding a suitable buyer who would be prepared to take on the risk and costs of renovating the house. One of the biggest factors against the house was its size. At over 8000sf it would have been a daunting task to bring it up to a livable standard. There also is not much inside the house either, its very underwhelming. The previous owners also let it fall into disrepair over the decades. The interior was demised and at one time it looked as if it was used as an apartment or rooming house.

Now it is time to move forward. I will let our track record of designating other historical buildings such as the Crawford Block and soon the Hulbert Block (Block 1912 cafe building) speak for itself.

I admit that I was disappointed when I read the article in the Journal. How could you Chris!!! But the reality is that it doesn't look a palace from the curb. Is there a component of the building that could be salvaged and incorporated into what ever gets built?

How about building a skyscraper there?!?

Just kidding...

[Baronmine]

Originally Posted by itom 987

What did the building look like back in 1932? Did it have a visible brick facade that was covered up as part of the renovation in the '50s?

It's history is a bit murky (mostly word of mouth). Originally it was built as a house (so I'm told) of which the roof section is still visible from the courtyard. I'm not sure what the original facade was made of. It was added onto as the owner could afford. The section I live in was built in 1935. Then the Patricia annex was built in 1953.


It's a great place to live. I haven't seen anything quite like it downtown.
Thank you for the interest in this unique place.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Mirador+Apartments/3786463/story.html?__lsa=42aa-583e


Check out some photos of the courtyard.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/El-Mirador/299591090085534