Dull. Dated. Uninspired. Generic. Disconnected from the neighbourhood. That’s what people are saying about the four finalists in the Royal Alberta Museum design competition. And those are the nice things.
It’s too ironic. Back in July, Alberta Infrastruce bureaucrats told me, in no uncertain terms, that they would never release the four rival concepts for the museum. We would only get to see the winning design. I wrote a column lambasting them, in which I argued that we needed to build public excitement about the museum project by letting people in on the process, by letting Edmontonians, and Albertans, feel as though they were part of the decision.
I was more right than I knew. The good news? On Thursday afternoon, Infrastructure reversed its earlier position, and released the four finalists’ design concepts. The bad news? I was right. Edmontonians are indeed fired up and excited about the RAM designs – but not in a good way. Despite the architectural pedigrees attached to each project, the final concepts are indeed bland, institutional and tired. They all look like buildings that we’ve seen elsewhere. They don’t speak much to the aspirations of Edmonton and Alberta circa 2011 – or to the history and culture of the province the building is meant to celebrate. They aren’t creative. They aren’t fun. They aren’t buildings we can passionately love, or passionately hate. They have only stirred controversy, ironically, because they are so uncontroversial, so utterly safe.
Ledcor's dated institutional RAM proposal puts the hum in humdrum
There are lots of reasons for this – and certainly, not all the blame belongs to the prestigious architects involved. (Click here to read a great post from David Staples, demonstrating what these self-same architects can accomplish when they really try!)
This was a rush job – the finalists were only announced the first week in July. The design teams had only a few weeks to put their proposals together, and the proposals called for tremendous detail. We’re seeing only a few artists’ renderings. The design firms had to include detailed .plans for the museum inside and out – not to mention, leaving room for a hypothetical future high speed rail station to be incorporated on the site.
That’s the other problem. This isn’t, and wasn’t, an architectural competition. It was a design-build competition, a very different thing. The “lead” name on all these bids doesn’t belong to the architect, but to the contractor, the firm building the project. It will be up to each builder to bring the project in on budget – or absorb the cost over-runs. That’s why the plans are so very very conservative, no pun intended. The contractors have to be absolutely certain they can bring the projects in at cost. Otherwise, they could end up losing money, a lot of money, on the deal. It’s a good deal for Alberta taxpayers, but not for lovers of bold design.
Building a museum like this is a huge undertaking. The budget doesn’t just include the cost of the shell, but the cost of building and creating the exhibits on the inside. Certainly, we don’t want to spend every penny on an “iconic” box, and leave nothing over for the curators to put our provincial story on proper display inside. We also need a museum that has all the most up-to-date environmental controls, so we can bring in the big touring shows that don’t come here because we can’t guarantee that we can exhibit them safely and professionally. To a certain extent, there’s nothing wrong with building a relatively modest housing for a great cultural facility – the Winspear, for example, spent its money on designing great acoustics, not a showy facade, and it’s become one of the city’s most beloved artistic legacies.
I don’t mind modest or classic - I don’t necessarily think we want to blow hundreds of millions on a “signature” or “iconic” building that looks gaudy but doesn’t work on the inside. What looks faddish today may look dated tomorrow. But some of these RAM designs just don’t work, period. The PCL proposal is the worst – it turns its back on Chinatown with a blank wall, and includes a “rooftop garden” that offers alleged panoramic views of the downtown.
The PCL design literally turns its back on east Edmonton
This is deeply silly – there are no panoramas to be seen from that height or site. And we need a design that brings the whole streetscape, on all side, alive. This RAM project isn’t just about building a new storage facility for our provincial relics. It’s about reinvigorating the northeast corner of the downtown. We need a design that helps to integrate Chinatown to the rest of the city centre, a design that might complement a hypothetical arena district, a design that connects with the Art Gallery of Alberta, the Winspear, the Citadel and Churchill Square.
In his Friday column, my Edmonton Commons bunk mate David Staples suggests, quite literally, that we send the designers back to the drawing board, that we put the breaks on the rush to get this project down before Ed Stelmach leaves office. While I agree with almost all of David’s column, I don’t share his optimism about the likelihood that the jostling Progressive Conservative leadership contenders, not one of whom is from Edmonton, will back this project to the hilt, much less give it more money. I think Stelmach’s political instincts are correct, this time, at least. If he doesn’t push this museum through, while he’s still in charge, I fear it will never ever be built. He, and we, have no way of knowing what the next PC leaders’ agenda will be. And with Danielle Smith and her rosy band of budget cutters hovering in the wings, we have no guarantees for the future.
But that doesn’t mean we should settle for tragically poor design. We do have other options. If Edmontonians, and Albertans, want a more inspired, and inspiring, museum, they should insist on getting one. Right now, the poor RAM isn’t allowed to fund-raise to build itself better digs. Unlike the AGA, or Toronto’s Royal Ontario Museum, the RAM has no independent board. It is a creature of Alberta Culture, its curators and managers are Stelmach government employees. They are forbidden to go out and raise money for major capital construction. It’s absurd. The Glenbow can raise money in Calgary’s oil company towers. The AGA, too, was able to raise money, not just in Edmonton, but in Calgary and Toronto. Why not allow our RAM the same opportunity? Why not allow the museum to go after major corporate donors, why not allow ordinary Albertans to donate a hundred or a thousand dollars to the project? Why not allow every community, from High Level to High Prairie, from Dapp to Devon to Drumheller, to raise funds towards a truly provincial museum that would make every Albertan proud?
And then there’s the federal government. Back when this project was first announced, in the days when Ralph Klein, of all people, was premier, the Paul Martin Liberals did kick in a significant chunk of change. Edmonton Centre MP Laurie Hawn has hinted in the past that more federal dollars might be forthcoming. Perhaps Stephen Harper, who so loves the name “royal”, would like to up the ante, and help us build a new museum worthy of its regal nomenclature.
Albertans, Edmontonians, you have until August 24 – and August 24th only – to speak up, to let your government know what you want for your museum. If we don’t want to settle for the safe and mediocre, if we don’t want to seize this opportunity to reinvigorate and reintegrate our downtown core, we have to say so. Now. Before it’s too late.
