{"id":4519,"date":"2014-06-06T13:44:23","date_gmt":"2014-06-06T19:44:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/edmonton\/?p=4519"},"modified":"2014-06-06T15:57:28","modified_gmt":"2014-06-06T21:57:28","slug":"city-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spacing.ca\/edmonton\/2014\/06\/06\/city-design\/","title":{"rendered":"A City of Design"},"content":{"rendered":"

Author\u2019s note: I am mixed on the proposed redesign of the Stanley Milner. I believe that there are improvements demonstrated in the\u00a0new\u00a0vision including better street interaction along the north front and potential for improved usable green space on the south plaza. However, I do lament the potential loss of the beautiful and comforting concrete pattern that adorns the austere walls. Ideally, would it be possible to preserve certain good design elements of the existing building while improving others?<\/i><\/p>\n

Edmontonians have become an opinionated bunch when it comes to building design. Take for example the proposed building renovation and new fa\u00e7ade for the Stanley Milner Library. People were quite divided. Proponents emphasized its new \u201ciconic<\/a>\u201d look and the much needed improvement along the north face while others\u00a0were concerned with losing\u00a0a landmark that features a cold yet familiar concrete design.<\/p>\n

Public figures have also been asked to put in their two cents: a city councilor remarked that the structure is \u201chideous-looking,\u201d which is similarly echoed by the library director and insinuated throughout\u00a0an article in the Edmonton Journal<\/a>. Common language that surfaced from these discussions like \u201cfacelift,\u201d \u201coutdated,\u201d and \u201cdrab\u201d set an overall negative tone to the existing state of the building.<\/p>\n

And here, I worry sometimes that we are not able to distinguish between good design and novelty.<\/p>\n

\"Edmonton_Centennial_Library_A_crop\"<\/a>
Edmonton Stanley Milner Library. Photo: supplied.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

To provide a bit context behind this paranoia of mine, Edmonton has a recent history of poor design throughout the \u201890s that continued onward into the turn of the millennium. With a boom and bust economy where the city population has rapidly shrunk and grown, the city garnered a reputation as a discount town with little long-term investment characterized by cheap box architecture and neglect. During that time, Railtown, City Centre Mall, West Edmonton Mall, and Oliver Square were built without much discussion on aesthetics with complete faith that the amenity itself would be sufficient enough to bring vitality to neighbourhoods.<\/p>\n

Presently, Edmontonians have started to speak out against this habit, perhaps best reflected in the former mayor Stephen Mandel\u2019s famous words: \u201cno more crap.\u201d However, that mantra itself is troublesome. The statement isn’t particularly useful since it does not inform people what crap and good design actually are. It also denigrates architectural gems and designs from previous booms that have been neglected and underappreciated. Consequently, there is this attraction to proposals that are new and flashy \u2013 supposedly a design that \u201cpops\u201d \u2013 whatever that means. The discussion instead focuses on whether or not the design is iconic, new, world-class, cool, modern, massive, or features the demolition or modification of any underperforming building.<\/p>\n

A good design, in contrast, can be articulated for its qualities rather than focusing on how it somehow conquered past under achievements. They address their intended functions yet present themselves in a holistic manner while recognizing context. As such, proposals, especially those with a high visual impact on the public sphere, should be discussed and debated from conception. Nothing screams more originality and creativity than a project\u2019s sole raison d\u2019\u00eatre or justification being because \u201cit\u2019s cool\u201d or \u201cevery other city is doing it.\u201d Does this stink of elitism? No, conversely, if the aim of a project is to make a city \u201ciconic\u201d or \u201cworld class,\u201d that mentally is just that. Instead, design should come from an actual need since it also has its rewards not just in terms of aesthetics \u2013 it should without much debate inspire minds, lift spirits, create wonder, place-make, generate activity, and increase productivity<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Despite the abundance of cheap architecture built in this city, Edmonton, ironically, was once considered architecturally advanced<\/a> by the end of the 60s well into the 70s thanks to the oil boom. I have colleagues and friends from other Canadian cities that marveled at the sights of our modernist gems including the CN tower<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Peter Hemingway Pool<\/a>. These buildings should be celebrated as part of Edmonton\u2019s story with class. Even if they are deemed as outdated, there is a certain aesthetic of its time that should be appreciated for preservation that helps builds the collective memory of Edmontonians. Any modification should be tasteful to respect the overall aesthetic. Unfortunately, as seen with the additions to the Stanley Miller Library<\/a> and the Telus World of Science<\/a>, Edmonton has not been great in respecting\u00a0that quality.<\/p>\n\n\t\t