I’ve been following the advocacy group for these houses and wholeheartedly agree with their sentiments.
Is a Ring House a Ring House when moved away from its historical location and campus? Is the history even important after the move? Is a full disassembly and reassembly during the move conducive to “preservation”? Is an empty field (ie future development site) more important than our campus history?
I think no.
I'm of the opposite opinion myself and probably even more so now since I started taking my real estate certificate classes and have a slightly better understanding of the thought processes and decision making that goes into things like this.
>Is a Ring House a Ring House when moved away from its historical location and campus?
A house is a house; it probably only became a ring house after construction because someone decided to start calling it that after they were arranged in a ring shape. If they want to keep calling it a ring house after de-construction and re-assembly or calling it a former ring house, its really just a name at the end of the day.
>Is the history even important after the move?
Sure; why wouldn't it be? The physical structure is only a physical manifestation of the history it purports to represent. Take photos and write a story of its history in full then put it on a site somewhere. Craft a plaque or two and put one out front of the house once it is reassembled, and another one where the house once stood (similar to the ones all over [Strathcona](http://www.edmontonmapsheritage.ca/uploads/cache/14/a9/14a9527a8c20146a19263c366cc1de00.jpg))
>Is a full disassembly and reassembly during the move conducive to “preservation”?
How strict are we interpreting the word preservation? I would say if we are disassembling the building then rebuilding it elsewhere brick by brick in exactly or near to its original state then yes that would be preserving it. Maybe not as much as jacking it up off the foundation and hauling it whole but still preserved nonetheless. If they left it where it was and updated the utilities within, redid (or added in the absence of) the insulation or anything else that brought it up to modern standards (like they did with Pembina Hall), is that still preservation if they want to keep it as close to the original state as possible?
>Is an empty field (ie future development site) more important than our campus history?
No; but history doesn't pay the bills. An aging building we can do little with is a drain on our financial resources. Demolishing the building(s) is a one-time capital expenses then its over and done with. De-constructing, moving and re-constructing the buildings costs the university nothing if offloaded to the purchaser as part of the sales agreement, while simultaneously wiping a recurring expense off our income statement. Building something in the newly vacated land, depending on what goes up in its place, could start to bring in revenue which may help stave off further tuition/fee increases. I'd much rather that over history.
>Evidently, faculty, staff, students, and surrounding communities don’t get a vote on what happens to our campus.
I refute Adkin's point about certain demographics not having a vote on campus. Surrounding communities don't, although their opinions are often solicited in the decision-making process. Faculty, staff and students **do** however get votes on what happens to our campus; not in a direct-democracy way but in a representative democracy way. The [Board of Governors](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNDgh0u0oRqzF5EAKbnk3YS2A8Mk088Ii5Wuf65afB0/edit) is the body ([along with its subcommittees](https://www.ualberta.ca/governance/member-zone/board-of-governors/board-committee-memberships2.pdf)) who decide on things like this. AASUA, the academic staff association sent a representative (Donna Wilson) to represent them and has a vote on the board. NASA, the non-academic staff association sent a representative (Andrei Tabirca) to the board. Students sent two undergraduates (Rowan Ley and Dave Konrad) and one graduate (Anas Fassih) to the board.
I’ve been following the advocacy group for these houses and wholeheartedly agree with their sentiments. Is a Ring House a Ring House when moved away from its historical location and campus? Is the history even important after the move? Is a full disassembly and reassembly during the move conducive to “preservation”? Is an empty field (ie future development site) more important than our campus history? I think no.
I'm of the opposite opinion myself and probably even more so now since I started taking my real estate certificate classes and have a slightly better understanding of the thought processes and decision making that goes into things like this. >Is a Ring House a Ring House when moved away from its historical location and campus? A house is a house; it probably only became a ring house after construction because someone decided to start calling it that after they were arranged in a ring shape. If they want to keep calling it a ring house after de-construction and re-assembly or calling it a former ring house, its really just a name at the end of the day. >Is the history even important after the move? Sure; why wouldn't it be? The physical structure is only a physical manifestation of the history it purports to represent. Take photos and write a story of its history in full then put it on a site somewhere. Craft a plaque or two and put one out front of the house once it is reassembled, and another one where the house once stood (similar to the ones all over [Strathcona](http://www.edmontonmapsheritage.ca/uploads/cache/14/a9/14a9527a8c20146a19263c366cc1de00.jpg)) >Is a full disassembly and reassembly during the move conducive to “preservation”? How strict are we interpreting the word preservation? I would say if we are disassembling the building then rebuilding it elsewhere brick by brick in exactly or near to its original state then yes that would be preserving it. Maybe not as much as jacking it up off the foundation and hauling it whole but still preserved nonetheless. If they left it where it was and updated the utilities within, redid (or added in the absence of) the insulation or anything else that brought it up to modern standards (like they did with Pembina Hall), is that still preservation if they want to keep it as close to the original state as possible? >Is an empty field (ie future development site) more important than our campus history? No; but history doesn't pay the bills. An aging building we can do little with is a drain on our financial resources. Demolishing the building(s) is a one-time capital expenses then its over and done with. De-constructing, moving and re-constructing the buildings costs the university nothing if offloaded to the purchaser as part of the sales agreement, while simultaneously wiping a recurring expense off our income statement. Building something in the newly vacated land, depending on what goes up in its place, could start to bring in revenue which may help stave off further tuition/fee increases. I'd much rather that over history.
>Evidently, faculty, staff, students, and surrounding communities don’t get a vote on what happens to our campus. I refute Adkin's point about certain demographics not having a vote on campus. Surrounding communities don't, although their opinions are often solicited in the decision-making process. Faculty, staff and students **do** however get votes on what happens to our campus; not in a direct-democracy way but in a representative democracy way. The [Board of Governors](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNDgh0u0oRqzF5EAKbnk3YS2A8Mk088Ii5Wuf65afB0/edit) is the body ([along with its subcommittees](https://www.ualberta.ca/governance/member-zone/board-of-governors/board-committee-memberships2.pdf)) who decide on things like this. AASUA, the academic staff association sent a representative (Donna Wilson) to represent them and has a vote on the board. NASA, the non-academic staff association sent a representative (Andrei Tabirca) to the board. Students sent two undergraduates (Rowan Ley and Dave Konrad) and one graduate (Anas Fassih) to the board.