Scrap the old terminal? Heritage assessment not required, but airport's architecture has defenders
By: Bartley Kives | Winnipeg Free Press - 2/05/2009 7:15 AM
A HERITAGE assessment planned for Richardson International Airport's passenger terminal has been cancelled, paving the way for the demolition of the architecturally significant structure when the airport's new terminal opens in 2010.
In April, the Winnipeg Airports Authority planned to assess the historic and artistic value of its 45-year-old glass-and-steel terminal, which academics consider a rare and robust example of mid-century modern design.
But the formal review was cancelled when the private corporation learned it was not subject to rules that require federally owned buildings to undergo heritage assessments, WAA spokeswoman Christine Alongi said.
The authority now plans to tear down the existing terminal and find a new home for the two massive artworks at either end of the structure: Eli Bornstein's Structuralist Relief in Fifteen Parts and John Graham's Northern Lights.
"We withdrew from the process, because we were advised it was not under Treasury Board policy," said Alongi, explaining that the WAA -- not Transport Canada -- effectively owns the terminal through a long-term lease.
Since no private-sector proposal to re-use the terminal has come forward, demolition will likely proceed in 2010 or 2011.
"Our business plan was always to utilize that private space," Alongi said. "If there was a business that wanted to utilize that space and put in the capital funding, that would interest us."
Right now, the only proposal for the space is a Western Canada Aviation Museum plan to build a new museum on the terminal site, which the airports authority won't need following the completion of its new, $672-million expansion. The expansion includes a new terminal designed by Cesar Pelli, whose credits also include the Petronas Towers in Malaysia.
The Ottawa-based Canadian Heritage Foundation is now vowing to fight herit- the demolition, at least to the point of demanding the WAA conduct a heritage assessment.
"Even though they're not obligated to do this, they are leasing one of the most significant modern buildings in Canada," said foundation spokeswoman Carolyn Quinn.
"In order to make the best and most informed decision about the future of the airport, having that assessment in front of them would make the most sense."
In 2008, the Canadian Heritage Foundation placed the Richardson terminal on its "Top 10 most endangered places" list. Along with airports in Toronto, Edmonton and Gander, N.L., the terminal "was built as part of a nationwide program to show Canadians and the world -- through the creation of striking architecture -- that Canada was a forward- thinking, cosmopolitan nation," the foundation maintains.
University of Winnipeg art history professor Serena Keshavjee, an expert in modern architecture, said every aspect of the terminal building, from the massive artworks down to the furniture design, was intended to push artistic boundaries.
"That building was extremely highquality, by international standards. It was cutting-edge at the time," she said, adding a respectful renovation during the 1980s maintained the building's character. "It's hard for people to realize these modern buildings are heritage buildings. It's hard to realize buildings built within our lifetime are important."
The fate of the Bornstein and Graham artworks also concern Keshavjee, as few Winnipeg buildings are large enough to store the sprawling murals.
Like the Canadian Heritage Foundation, she's urging a stay of execution for the terminal. Its sister building in Toronto has been demolished and the Edmonton terminal has been renovated beyond recognition.
"If we tear it down, we'll be sorry in a couple of years," she said.
bartley.kives@freepress.mb.ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comments from WFP site
Posted by:i8toomuch
May 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Aren't they now building a new post office building at the airport that is about the size of the old terminal?
Why couldn't the post office have waited until vacant and then refurbish the old terminal and use that? Everyone would have won.Heritage gets their building saved,post office gets new digs where they want them and the poor little taxpayer may have saved a few bucks. Course that money would just be squandered somewhere else I'm sure.
Report abusive comment Posted by:minivan megafun
May 2, 2009 at 11:24 AM
KBT - you are bang on. I love the special interest heritage lobby because they somehow have a lot of political clout but their main mission seems to be to make it someone else's problem. This building should be preserved! And someone else should pay for it!
I traveled through the airport recently and while I was waiting to board the plane I sat and took a good long look at the terminal. My thoughts were: What a dump. The design is cold, ugly, and run down. I could only imagine what an embarrassment the terminal is as a first impression to every visitor who sees Winnipeg for the first time. The building is an eyesore that has to go. I could see if it was part of a district or area that the architecture fits in, but where is stands is completely without context.
Report abusive comment Posted by:statusquo
May 2, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Welcome to the old terminal at JR International! Or as we like to call it the Avenue Building 2. We know it just sits here looking empty and unused...mostly because no one will put their money where their mouth is...as so often happens in this town...but we couldn't DARE tear it down to make way for something new! No!! We....must....appreciate.....what...someone...else...has....already....built. We...must....squeeze...out..all...the.....app....reci......ation....we....can....muster! Look at it! Bask in its 60s grooviness! Appreciate its ironess! Its brickness! Its mortarness! Worship its airport terminalness!!! We don't do this for us! No! We do this for future generations of people who will have no choice but to point and say, "Hey! That building was built a long time ago!"
Report abusive comment Posted by ick Maguire
May 2, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I agree with the other commentators,that the old terminal should be torn down, once the new terminal is built.
If these heritage types think it should be preserved, let them purchase or rent it at fair market value, and use it for something. It is easy for those people to spend other people's money on wasteful projects
Report abusive comment Posted by:logicgirl
May 2, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Why doesn't the Canadian Heritage Foundation allocate their funds and rent the existing air terminal building and turn it into a viable business?
I don't understand why they haven't explored that option if the airport authority is looking to work with business.
There is a lot of developments at the airport right now, so perhaps instead of fighting demoition, the heritage foundation can get onboard with the renaissance taking place at our airport.
Posted by Logicgirl.....
Report abusive comment Posted by:
May 2, 2009 at 9:26 AM
The contempt this city has for heritage architecture is embarrassing.
Report abusive comment Posted by:KBT
May 2, 2009 at 9:14 AM
It's all well and good to say that buildings should be preserved, but at whose cost? And if there's no identified purpose for the building, then what's to be done? Who should pay to maintain the building and for how long?
These stories would be more valuable and have more credibility if the antagonists suggested real, workable solutions rather than simply tilting at the windmills.
If there was anyone willing to repurpose the building and assume responsibility for its management, then certainly, preserve it. Absent that, there are other priorities for government spending.
Report abusive comment Posted by:pentax99
May 2, 2009 at 8:22 AM
If It serves no useful purpose, rip it down. The building really isn’t anything to look at anyway. Fill to repair the eroding river banks is a better use of the demolished structure.
Report abusive comment
|