A controversial proposal to rebuild a demolished pavilion designed by Frank Lloyd Wright – one of the most distinguished and famous architects of the 20th Century – will be before Banff’s politicians for debate later this month.
A group of Frank Lloyd Wright heritage preservationists wants to rebuild the pavilion, which was demolished in the 1930s, at or to close to its original location at the Banff recreation grounds, now home to the existing baseball diamonds.
Last Thursday, (Feb. 25), Banff Heritage Corporation referred the issue to council, recommending the proposal be evaluated within the context of the already approved redevelopment plan for the recreation grounds to ensure the proposal aligns with residents’ needs.
Heritage Corporation officials say they acknowledge the desire to rebuild the pavilion, noting its potential as a tourist attraction, community facility and legacy to the architecture of Wright.
But, they say, building a replica of a demolished building falls outside the scope of standard practices for heritage preservation in Banff and throughout Canada and it would not qualify as a heritage structure.
“We all adore Frank Lloyd Wright as an architect, but this proposal simply does not qualify as a heritage structure because it’s a rebuild,” said Herb MacAulay, chairman of Banff Heritage Corporation.
“It could be the only Frank Lloyd Wright-designed hot dog stand in the whole universe,” he said, noting there are currently no caveats on how the building would be used if it were to go ahead.
Wright and Francis Conroy Sullivan, Wright’s only Canadian student, designed the Banff National Park Pavilion in his rustic “Prairie” style in 1911 at the request of the federal government.
As tourism was booming in Banff’s early days, the federal government wanted to showcase Canada’s first national park to the upper class and commissioned Wright to design a visitor’s pavilion for the rec grounds.
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 arena, with curling and hockey rinks.
Construction began in 1913 and was finished the following year. But severe flooding in 1933 caused severe structural damage and the pavilion was demolished in 1938 when no funds were made available for repairs.
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 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.
Arthur Allen, a distinguished retired Vancouver-based architect, is in full support of the project.
He began a campaign to get the pavilion rebuilt back in the 1980s, along with his brother Murray. American filmmaker Michael Miner, an ardent Wright fan, is now spearheading the project on behalf of the Frank Lloyd Wright Revival Initiative.
“I’m in love with the project,” said Allen, who spent the first 18 years of his life in Banff. “Because I was a kid in Banff I have a personal connection to Banff and I am a devotee of Frank Lloyd Wright.”
Allen said he has no personal memories of the pavilion, as he would have been just six when it was demolished, but his older brother Murray, who passed away in 2010, recalled the building.
“He remembered going to the building on school picnics,” he said.
“It was used very much by the locals, for school picnics and church picnics, as well as by large Calgary organizations for summer picnics. It was very popular and well used.”
Miner could not be reached for comment at the time the Outlook went to press, but Frank Lloyd Wright Revival Initiative’s proposal to the Town of Banff states the group wants to promote the legacy of Wright by rebuilding certain structures.
The group’s goal is to re-introduce certain Wright works back into their communities, thus honouring both the initial intent – as well as design – of the structures through their authentic recreation on their original sites.
They 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.
In his written proposal to the Town of Banff, Miner said priority has been given to the Banff pavilion because it’s a beautiful example of Wright’s iconic Prairie School Style and the only public space built by him in Canada.
“Reviving the pavilion lends an opportunity to rebuild a work by one of the most recognizable architects in modern history whose influence in the field is still tangible today and whose work continues to be studied and admired,” said Miner.
Miner said the pavilion would augment Banff’s reputation as an arts and culture epicenter, noting the importance of The Banff Centre and Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies.
He said the pavilion would draw more tourists, particularly art and architecture enthusiasts, and have potential to generate revenues, noting Wright’s work draws considerable public attention given his esteem.
He noted annual visitors to Fallingwater brought in $5.6 million in revenue in 2013. The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation reported $2.9 million in revenues from public tours and facility access in 2014.
“It would make Banff the only destination in Canada with a Frank Lloyd Wright attraction,” said Miner.
Members of the 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.
Questions were raised about the proposed use of the building and whether or not it would it be used as it was historically or given a new use, or if the rec grounds redevelopment plan could be amended to accommodate the building in its original or nearby location.
The group also talked about what measures would need to be taken to ensure the building would not be prone to future flooding, and whether or not reconstruction of the pavilion would open the town up to further criticism with respect to its perceived artificiality.
MacAulay said one of the criteria that gives historical significance to a building is its existence within the collective memory of the community, but he said there are fewer than a handful of people in Banff with any memory of the pavilion.
He said the pavilion was also pitched as a tourist attraction, but he said the existing recreation plan for the rec grounds is about the community, where people go to play tennis, baseball or rugby.
“It certainly doesn’t need a whole bunch more visitation there, because it would be at the expense of local people,” he said.
“I have made the point this is a wonderful thing, but it’s not conducive to the community interest because it would be taking away a couple of baseball diamonds.”
The Town of Banff’s redevelopment plans for the rec grounds do not contemplate rebuilding of the pavilion, but do call for a commemoration by way of signage or a special feature to recognize the pavilion and Wright.
The planning and development department is reviewing Frank Lloyd Wright Revival Initiative’s proposal and will present council with options for their consideration at a March 29 council meeting.
Officials say recommended options will include rejecting the proposal, or potential amendments to the rec grounds redevelopment plan to accommodate the building in its original location, or somewhere close to its original location.
“We’re taking the proposal seriously and we want to make sure we give it the proper time to think it over and do our due diligence,” said planner Jennifer LaForest, the Town’s administration liaison on the heritage corporation.
Councillor Chip Olver, council’s representative on the Banff Heritage Corporation, said Banff is constrained by its limited land base, noting ball diamonds are located in the pavilion’s original location.
Olver also flagged the issue of potential future flooding because the rec grounds lie within a flood plain, noting the original pavilion was damaged in the 1930s because of several flooding.
“I think it’s really interesting that there’s such an interest in a Frank Lloyd Wright building that somebody wants to recreate it,” she said.
“But I don’t know if the group that’s making this offer to do this understands Banff’s restricted land base and what challenges we have in terms of that location.”
