A controversial proposal to build a replica of a demolished pavilion in Banff designed by Frank Lloyd Wright – one of the most distinguished and famous architects of the 20th Century – is one step closer to reality.
At a meeting Tuesday (March 29), Banff town council voted 6-1 to support the Frank Lloyd Wright Revival Initiative in principle, but it has to fit within existing plans for redevelopment of Banff’s recreation grounds.
The Frank Lloyd Wright Revival Initiative will also be asked to conduct a feasibility study and cost analysis for the municipality to better understand the implications of proceeding with the project.
Officials say the pavilion, if it were to go ahead, is unlikely to be built in its original location because of rec grounds redevelopment plans, but there are at least three nearby locations on the grounds that have been identified as possible.
Mayor Karen Sorensen said Tuesday’s vote takes the long talked about issue to the next step, noting it will eventually fall on council to discuss potential uses of the almost 10,000-square-foot building if it is to go ahead.
“We’re giving the nod to pursue the idea, let’s talk about it a little more, let’s see what the possibilities are,” said Sorensen.
“If I was to dream to the finality of this, I would see it on the river with a new pedestrian bridge from Central Park over to the building – but that’s several million dollars away.”
Over the course of Wright’s life, he designed and built more than 500 structures, many of which have become icons of design, including The Guggenheim Museum in New York and Fallingwater in Pennsylvania, a house famous for a waterfall built into its design.
The Banff pavilion was one of only two Wright buildings in Canada. The other Canadian building is a private cottage in Ontario that still stands.
Michael Miner, a U.S. documentary filmmaker and ardent Wright fan, and Poste Strategies, are spearheading the latest push to rebuild the Banff Park Pavilion, which was demolished in the 1930s.
The group’s goal is to re-introduce certain Wright works back into certain communities, thus honouring both the initial intent – as well as design – of the structures through their authentic recreation on their original sites.
The group will fund the construction and, once complete, the building would be handed over to the Town of Banff, which can then determine a strategic plan for its use that most benefits, and best meet the needs, of residents.
The price tag to build is estimated at between $6 million and $8 million.
“This is not a building to be privately owned or to be used a resort facility,” said Arthur Allen, a retired Vancouver architect who is working with Miner on the project. “It is to be a multi-purpose building for use by the citizens of Banff.”
Wright and Francis Conroy Sullivan, Wright’s only Canadian student, designed the Banff National Park Pavilion in his rustic Prairie School style in 1911 at the request of the federal government, at a time tourism was booming in Banff.
The building was said to be controversial from the get-go, as local residents voiced opposition to the pavilion because they wanted a year-round winter sports area, with curling and hockey rinks.
Construction began in 1913 and was finished the following year, just prior to the First World War. Shortly after being finished it was repurposed for use during the war as a quartermaster’s store by the federal defence department.
But flooding between 1920 and 1933 caused structural damage and reports from the Crag & Canyon in the 1930s reference extensive damage to the building from frequent temperature changes and neglect.
When no funds were made available for repairs, the pavilion was demolished in 1938. Today, there is no evidence of the original structure.
Allen, who spent the first 18 years of his life in Banff, said Miner proposes to donate the Banff Pavilion to the Town of Banff, noting he and the municipality are not bound to follow standard heritage conservation in this case.
“A well-built replica of the pavilion will recall the unique charm of early days in Banff and the park, complemented by the eminence of Wright’s work,” said Allen.
“It will make a contribution to world heritage and be an honour to the Town and the architect,” he added.
“I feel that if the rare and generous donation of this notable building is rejected it will be recorded as an embarrassing event in the history of Banff and the national park.”
Allen said both he and Miner have always understood the conflict of the pavilion’s original location with the ball diamonds at the rec grounds.
He said a new location, preferably with similar views and exposure, would be acceptable.
“That may not honour purist rules of heritage work … but this project is not bound by such rules,” said Allen, noting this is a replica of the pavilion.
Evie Eshpeter of Poste Strategies said the group is willing to consider another location at the rec grounds, but noted the building’s orientation is an important factor.
“We are sensitive to the needs of the community and the other needs in this space, so moving the building from its original site if we had to would be fine,” she said.
“In terms of orientation, when considering other locations, at that point we could determine from an architectural perspective what might be better because the idea of the Prairie style was built in consideration of the geographical backdrop.”
The feasibility study and cost-benefit analysis to be completed by the proponent will include a host of issues to satisfy outstanding questions for the Town of Banff.
This would include an overview of the scope of the work required to build the structure, an evaluation of site location alternatives, related environmental assessments requirements and estimates of building design and construction costs.
The study is also to include estimated infrastructure improvements required to service the building, long-term operation and maintenance costs, funding and financing sources, program options and an assessment of the economic impact of the project on the community.
Councillor Corrie DiManno was the only councillor to vote against the motion, saying she believes the community has spoken through public consultation on its desires for the Banff recreation grounds.
“While this is a really beautiful building and a very interesting opportunity for Banff, at this time, I feel that it’s just not right,” she said.
Coun. Stavros Karlos voiced support to take the discussion on rebuilding the pavilion to the next step, saying the proposal was not known at the time the community was consulted on redevelopment plans for the rec grounds.
“I would suggest this is to be considered as a public amenity as it was first envisioned,” he said.
“A structure like this in any community that’s supported by outside dollars should be welcomed and encouraged.”
Members of Banff’s Heritage Corporation have debated the merits of the proposal at length, including a discussion regarding the difference between preservation, restoration and reconstruction, and noted legislation is virtually silent on the issue of reconstruction.
The building will not qualify for any heritage grants through the Town of Banff because it is a replica.
Herb MacAulay, the corporation’s chairman, said one of the criteria that gives historical significance to a building is its existence within the collective memory of the community, but there are only about three people with any memory of the building.
“In this particular case, it’s very, very slight,” said MacAulay. “It’s a philosophical observation, but I would suggest this is not a reconstruction, this is a new construction.”
