Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hanger 11 makes list of top 10 most endangered historic buildings in Canada

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hanger 11 makes list of top 10 most endangered historic buildings in Canada

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ered-1.4153875

    One of only two remaining Second World War hangers in Canada, built in 1942.

    I realize the airport won't come back, but will the city simply demolish this amazing peace of Canadian military history?

    Of can it be repurposed as suggested in the article or perhaps (?) even moved/rebuilt at Fort Edmonton park (there is already a hanger there though)?

  • #2
    Originally posted by moahunter View Post
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ered-1.4153875

    One of only two remaining Second World War hangers in Canada, built in 1942.

    I realize the airport won't come back, but will the city simply demolish this amazing peace of Canadian military history?

    I have not checked in the last 2 years but ... the last information I saw from the CoE was the hangar in the article and it's equally significant mate were to be demolished. IIRC
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 10-06-2017, 10:24 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      ^I guess it wasn't designed by Peter Hemingway, so the architect snobs in Edmonton don't care about it. Just preservationists in the rest of Canada, who likely don't matter to those who decide. Its an imposing structure, I always found it interesting. Hard to believe something useful couldn't be done with it, in terms of a community space.



      Built in 1942, Hangar 11 is one of only two remaining Second World War-era hangars built at the former Blatchford Field — later the Edmonton municipal airport — through a partnership with the U.S. Air Force.

      The former airfield helped move thousands of American bombers, fighters and transport planes though Edmonton to Alaska and finally to Russia during the Second World War. Hangar 11 is listed on the city's Inventory of Historic Resources, but is not protected by formal designation.

      The former municipal airfield is now being redeveloped and Hangar 11 is not being retained.

      "It's an incredibly intact building," said Wiebe. "They're redeveloping the whole site for a residential neighbourhood and this would be a tremendous opportunity to speak to that historic character of the airfield and convert it into some kind of community use, like a sports centre or something of that nature."
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ered-1.4153875
      Last edited by moahunter; 10-06-2017, 01:04 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        ^
        They should use this as a combined sport centre and community hall. You could add an ice plant and make it a hockey or curling rink, or use it for indoor soccer and lacrosse. It could also be book for community festivals and private events, like wedding receptions. You could even rent it as a small concert venue. The office space built into it could be used for the Blatchford community league, or rented as enterprise or art incubation spaces. The last thing that should happen is this buildings destruction

        Comment


        • #5
          This should definitely be kept around, a hangar would make a great fieldhouse, if the beams might be a little lower that's charm, not a deal-breaking flaw. Blatchford needs to keep some of these buildings around to give it a real identity and not be just as artificial as the suburban neighbourhood named after whatever was destroyed in order to build it.

          That said, these are big poorly insulated buildings made of wood. It's not reasonable to expect that they remain exactly as is. Upgrades can be done without ruining the character.
          There can only be one.

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree this should be kept, in keeping with trying to emulate and respect the history of this area. I imagine to preserve it would be quite the challenge however in it's current form. How much structural and interior renovation can you do before it's more cost effective to knock it over and build it back up again?

            ^^A community rink would be a fantastic use for it.

            Comment


            • #7
              In any other city than Edmonton these buildings would be preserved and incorporated into the design and plans for Blatchford. Otherwise, what's the tie to history of the area? What makes great cities is old and new together.
              www.decl.org

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by GreenSPACE View Post
                In any other city than Edmonton these buildings would be preserved and incorporated into the design and plans for Blatchford. Otherwise, what's the tie to history of the area? What makes great cities is old and new together.
                Do you have any examples of cities with a mid-city airport that redeveloped that land and preserved old hangars?
                I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

                Comment


                • #9
                  ^King's Cross Redevelopment comes to mind https://casestudies.uli.org/kings-cross/. It doesn't have to be an airport hanger. Could be any old industrial or commercial building. Many industrial and railroad related buildings abandoned for over half century, one of the toughest places in London.

                  Truman's Brewery scheme in London turned that into markets and creative space. Very simple concepts. But it all took time and willingness to keep the existing buildings while plans and funding were put in place. Not unlike the reasons to keep Rossdale intact.
                  www.decl.org

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by GreenSPACE View Post
                    ^King's Cross Redevelopment comes to mind https://casestudies.uli.org/kings-cross/. It doesn't have to be an airport hanger. Could be any old industrial or commercial building. Many industrial and railroad related buildings abandoned for over half century, one of the toughest places in London.
                    Yes but we're talking here about an old hangar, a big box of air that could take a lot of work to be useful as anything but a big box of air just for sentimental reasons, having little architectural signficance. How hard do we work to keep old buildings just because they're old? Your other examples are all significantly more than big boxes of air designed to shelter airplanes - they were designed from the start with interior floors and walls of substance to contain machines and people.
                    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ^I'm sure through community consultation and proper planning a scheme could come together even if you can't imagine it now. I can think of half a dozen cool things to do with the building.

                      If you don't save a few buildings like this when you're doing a redevelopment plan for an area, what's the point? Why would people want to live there over somewhere else, other than proximity to the core? Just bad planning to tear these down. If they're in absolutely terrible shape, that's one thing. But if not, lots of reuse potential.

                      We used to tear down brick warehouses in the core with the same abandon.
                      www.decl.org

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GreenSPACE View Post
                        ^I'm sure through community consultation and proper planning a scheme could come together even if you can't imagine it now. I can think of half a dozen cool things to do with the building.

                        If you don't save a few buildings like this when you're doing a redevelopment plan for an area, what's the point? Why would people want to live there over somewhere else, other than proximity to the core? Just bad planning to tear these down. If they're in absolutely terrible shape, that's one thing. But if not, lots of reuse potential.

                        We used to tear down brick warehouses in the core with the same abandon.
                        Those warehouses were at least designed to hold people and things. The hangar will either have to be left as a big box of air or need signficant work to give it an interior. Much the same challenge as the Coliseum deliberations are facing.

                        I can think of lots of cool things to do with the building too, like making it into my house (talk about open plan!), but that pipe-dream would have to be paid for and that's where the true "value" of the building will have to be assessed. Perhaps Ken could shed some light on how turning that big shed into something useful to the community would go. I'd be interested in what the sentimentality premium would be in making the building useful vs building a new one.
                        I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ^Warehouses were not seen as useful either until someone decided they could be converted to housing. Similar with any other building ever anywhere. Prince of Wales Armoury is now archives and other offices. It too was just a large open space. I don't buy that argument.
                          www.decl.org

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by GreenSPACE View Post
                            ^Warehouses were not seen as useful either until someone decided they could be converted to housing. Similar with any other building ever anywhere. Prince of Wales Armoury is now archives and other offices. It too was just a large open space. I don't buy that argument.
                            That armoury was nowhere the multi-story big empty box with thin walls that the hangar is. I appreciate your boosterism and sentiment, but that big old shed is a real stretch. Guess we'll have to wait until someone costs it out.
                            I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The armory is brick and prettier, but the archive facility is essentially a building built within the empty part of the old empty box, with a few offices and at least one rentable hall in the old shell.

                              It wouldn't be hard to figure out if something works. Measure the hangar footprint, and overlay with the various sports fields that we seem to be so short of. If it fits there you go. If not, try again.

                              It's not like our new rec centres are much more than fancy boxes when it comes down to it.
                              There can only be one.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X