That building is a joke. Worked on it at the concrete stage. They made it pretty instead if functional. With tons of useless space and fancy design could have built a rectangle for half the price. Oh and I think the color scheme look looks horrible.

Wondering if they will have pay parking like the rest of downtown?

Sure they will, if you park there you have to pay.

Ugliest building downtown. Does anyone think it fits in with the bns and td buildings? I guess those that approved it believe so. I am glad I am old and near the end—- there is so much that makes no sense to me at all.

A fitting building for the Crime Captial of Canada.

“architectural interest pieces”

LOL, now there is an interesting phrase I have never run across in my, life.

So I put the phrase into a search engine. And there it was, about 10th hit down, sitting in a decorator’s article called “Adding Architectural Interest to a Plain Condo”. It was all about such things as crown moldings and chair rails etc. etc.

Now I understand. First we design the box. Then we make a slanted glass wall here to give it some “architectural interest” and some cut stone facing there, and some metal panels along this wall, and make some of them one colour and some another colour. Why? For architectural interest.

Oh, and then we must appease the goods of wood is good. We need something on the outside that wears with the weather to make it look aged after some 10 years or so. Oh, and if we use the wood to make it look iconic. How about making it look like a series of gallows to symbolize justice.

Yes, architectural interest pieces. The Germans have a word for that type of pasted on architectural interest pieces – “kitsch”. Even “schlock” would be befitting this building we are now paying for. The

The French word “cliché” – elements which have become overused to the point of losing their original meaning, or effect, thus becoming trite and irritating – would be far too gentle for what the decorators have done to this building.

As carpenter posted, it could have been more functional for less the price. And, with another architect, it could have been a very pleasant addition to the downtown.

With pay parking coming back nobody will be downtown to see it anyways, just cops and crackheads.

What are the plans for the old RCMP building? Update it into a h

Update it into a high price condo?

The old RCMP station, under George Paul, was to have become the new quarters for Studio 2880 functions so that they could sell the 15th Ave. property.

I would think that the money from that sale could go to convert the building to the new use.

Then, when the 15th avenue gets developed, likely for some housing similar to the adjacent housing, they would increase the tax base to pay for the “architectural interest pieces” of the new police station. ;-)

“under George Paul”….. Harken back to the good ol’ days when city hall had actual plan for something other than the next breath.

Don’t know if you saw this gus, but might be of some interest. TED talks wood!

http://www.archdaily.com/402492/

Its such an ugly building, to think we could have had a beutiful syscraper in place of.

Yes, I saw that, thanks lonesome sparrow. I am on the TED mailing list. Some great inspirational discussions/talks.

On another topic, there was a recent one which had an interesting alternate viewpoint on fundraising activities. The main thrust was that we were shackling not-for-profits by using, as one of the main measurements of a quality fundraising organization, the proportion of funds which go to the actual people in need of the funds being handed out by the charity.

So, say a charity which raises $10million and $8million goes to those people is a better charity than one which raises $100 million and $70 million goes to the people in need.

Which is more effective? I know the first one is more efficient. But the second one is almost 9 times as effective.

He figures that charities should be measured the same way as any business – by its success rate; by what it does and how effective it is at doing that.

BTW, Michael Green is the Architect who designed the Brink Trade Building – conversion from Canadian Tire, the Airport arrivals and international section addition, as well as the WIDC which we will see being built over the next year or so.

If he had designed the RCMP building, I am sure that we would have gotten architectural interest without pieces stuck on a box and at a far less expensive cost.

But, then again, those at City Hall who managed to get us the monstrosity we now have really do not understand what good architecture is.

The exterior architectural design of this building doesn’t resemble gallows – those are ‘Maple Reindeer’, lol. Says so on the sign. Heh.

Because money donated to charity is finite resource efficiency should be weighted more heavily than effectiveness. Charity burnout would happen a lot sooner if people knew that 30% of the donation went to overhead….TED ;)

From the front its resembles a crab to me.

I don’t know who is steering the ship, but high on LSD comes to mind. What an ugly montrosety! Cops and crooks got a fancy place to reside in, all in the name of the stupid tax payer! Disgusting…..

There must be a lot of architects on this opinion site, with this many critics. Of all the buildings in this city, you guys really think this is the worst? How about the native friendship center? The playhouse? Most of the schools around his city are eyesores, not including DPSS and CHSS. I like the design, it’s modern and interesting. Though clearly ‘modern’ and ‘interesting’ aren’t in some of your architectural vocabulary, that must be why there’s so many UNBC haters on here too!

Oh! And our favorite eyesore, City hall. It could go for a make over of soo many sorts.

Littleone, we aren’t talking about eyesores, we are talking about the waste of tax payers dollars. When it comes to a cop shop, functional not pretty is what most law abiding tax paying citizens want!

But there again, if folks were not spending so much extra money on stupid misspent tax dollars, the may be able to afford some new eye glasses so that could see clearly what is really going on!

Good one. Not. I count at least 5 references to the buildings appearance without any reference to taxes. Perhaps you should find your own pair of glasses. Also, City hall proves that buildings can be ugly and dysfunctional, so why can’t pretty buildings do the opposite?

I disagree. I think the city hall is an appropriate looking functional building for a city the size of PG. If the city ever grows by 20,000 or more then add a floor or two.

The RCMP station was an absolute waste going where it is. The location is probably the most high value location in the city for future tax revenue and they take it out of the revenue pool to put a police station there. Inept planning pure and simple.

To me from 6th to 2nd avenue on Victoria street is the Northern BC commercial center and as such should have stayed that way and if anything planned for future buildings that would enhance that strategic center. Outside of the Lower Mainland in BC this is the only commercial center anchored on either end by a 10-12 story office tower… and only Calgary or Edmonton can say the same for Alberta.

If BMO and CIBC want to be a part of the Northern BC commercial sector then they should have been encouraged to build their own towers along this stretch of road. Ideally 5-6 stories higher than the anchors at either end and were the new police station is located. Maybe we could get a LNG office tower in the city as well, or a forest industry based office tower?

At least the folks that do their best to keep us safe from harm will have space to do their work. Right now it’s guns n badges in a sardine can. Any of you smelled an evidence locker that’s old and mouldy? Didn’t think so.
But I do agree that it’s ostentatious to the max which is not needed.
Just glad they’ll have room to breathe and work.
The old building was built for what, 50 people? How many we got now? 150?
Jeez, I’m sure glad I don’t work there.

Grizzly1. The old building was designed and built by the City of PG, and the RCMP so one would presume it met their needs.

The City hasn’t grown much since it was built, nor has the number of Police in this City. City staff working at the police station may have grown, as they now have 50 City workers looking after the RCMP business. Add in 124 Police and you have 174 people. However you have to keep in mind that a lot of them work the afternoon and midnight shift, plus week=ends, so they are not all in the building at the same time.

This building could have gone up one or two more stories if necessary. In addition, if there is mould etc; in the building it is a consequence of the police and the City not doing the necessary maintenance etc;

Do you think that the new cells, evidence room, etc; will remain clean and neat??? Have we a new type of prisoner that will be concerned about the cleanliness, of the cells.

The new Police station is a prime example of how tax payers money can be wasted on a grand scale. Nothing more, nothing less.

Palopu, you appear on the face of it to be someone who has never been inside the building, either in the 70’s or now. That building, when it was designed, was built for a lot less people, a lot less exhibits, and overcrowding a building that had 70’s construction and knowledge over what was know to have been needed then as opposed to now.
The new building will probably be a lot easier to keep clean and yes, there are a lot more staff in that building now as opposed to the 70’s. Don’t know where you your opinion is coming from, but mine is built on experience.

Spend, spend, spend. A million dollars for wings. Even sheri’s expenses went up 5 fold. Meanwhile the tax payers are wondering how many years before they lose their homes. Good Grief….does anybody know how to conserve these days.

That building is a joke. Worked on it at the concrete stage. They made it pretty instead if functional. With tons of useless space and fancy design could have built a rectangle for half the price. Oh and I think the color scheme look looks horrible.

Grizzly1, I’m not doubting what your saying, its not a large building. However, was some space not gained when the courts moved out of the building ? Was some space not gained when “E” Division got its own building ? And what the heck is that RCMP Fortress at Quinn & 22nd Ave ?

My point was that if more space was needed then the City could have added one or two more floors. Why did they not do that.

Did they in effect want to build a new building, then relocate 2880 to the present Police Station, and then sell off the property on 15th and channel that money into a Capital Projects fund, for say something like a Performing Arts Centre???

Who knows. Seems they felt the only option was a new building. I believe that building was built in 1968 so it would be about 43 years old. The City says that it was to old to repair, hence the new building.

However at the same time that they were grunting and groaning over the Police Station and its age, they allowed IPG to buy the CN Building on First Avenue. This building was constructed in 1971 and was only three or four years older than the Police Station.

Soooo. We have an old building that must be sold, and an old building that must be bought. Vintage City of PG BS.

Here’s a thought. When I was young and an apprentice carpenter, I put forms in for a ate of stairs going to the roof. There is a door on the north west corner of the “Old RCMP Building”, that has a set of concrete stairs going nowhere. That building was designed for future floors, that is a fact Grizzly. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!

Grizzly I read the building cost an extra five million to make it pretty and trendy, read uuugly. So should that money have been spent on pretty or real police resources?

Go check it out tax payers. You got fleeced again by a bunch of self serving politicians lining their own pockets. Get out and vote already!

lonesome sparrow wrote: “Because money donated to charity is finite resource…”

The very thing that Dan Pallotta talks about. Groceries are also a finite resource. In other words we really do not need to open up another grocery store unless we have a larger population base. But people and corporations do. They think they can grab a part of the grocery pie, or can get a bigger part of it.

Well, the same goes for charities. So, if that is true, and I do believe it to be true, then pattern your way of handling the charity after successful for profit businesses.

[url]http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html[/url

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

Maybe it will become a tourist attraction and bring people downtown, regardless of whether it is deemed “ugly” or “architecturally interesting”.

littleone wrote: “There must be a lot of architects on this opinion site, with this many critics.”

With that single statement you show how little you actually understand about the profession and the products of the professions of architecture. Unlike law, medicine, forestry, nuclear science, accounting, etc. the products of the profession of architecture have been open to fair comment by lay people for centuries. They may range from the layout of a building, the cost of a building, the appearance of a building, the placement of a building in the urban environment or the natural environment, the operation of a building and so on and so forth.

Most of the other professions can “hide” behind an extensive vocabulary of jargon which would have a discussion of professional decisions, plans, methods, results, practices, etc. to be totally unintelligible to the lay person.

Architecture, on the other hand is a public profession in that its products are readily visible, touchable and walk-through-able which is impossible with the products of most other professions. I include landscape architecture with that, as well as the profession of interior design.

I see all comments of this building to be fair comments since they are opinions based on actual experience of this and hundreds and thousands of other buildings.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
littleone wrote: “clearly ‘modern’ and ‘interesting’ aren’t in some of your architectural vocabulary.”
Those are lay words, not the words a professional architect or architectural critique like Phyllis Lambert would use.

If you want to talk in architectural jargon then learn how to properly use some of the following words in a sentence:
merge, shell, fenestration, clarity, juxtaposition, tartan grid, tectonics, parti, composition, precession, articulation, texture, hierarchy, homogeneous, biomimicry, massing, truncated, uniformity, balance, form, diagram, curvilinear, symmetry, etc.

If you want to read what a professional architectural critique reads like, read this idiom and icon laden critique of Libeskind’s Crystal addition to the historic stone Royal Ontario Museum.

http://www.johnbentleymays.com/index.cfm?PAGEPATH=Daniel_Libeskind&ID=14881

A portion from the above linked critique:

“Libeskind’s architecture is assertive, aggressive, excessive in its spatial punch. His sharp angles and odd rhythms slash across the grain of North American cities, their steady, rectilinear layout and conventional gradations of scale. Instead of comfortably fitting in, his recent museum designs duel with the older buildings in their contexts, contradicting their reassuringly familiar forms.”

Then: “Light enters the building through irregular gashes ripped into the silvery grey facade. The galleries are framed by leaning walls and plunging precipices, and they incorporate overlooks that open on to chasms gouged deep into the building’s heart.”

Modern and interesting ????? !!!!!! We are definitely in Prince George …. LOL

“Maybe it will become a tourist attraction and bring people downtown”

It may do that for a while. People will soon realize it has nothing to offer to demonstrate what is the heart of Prince George.

Unlike the Sacre Coeur in Paris, artists will never ply their wares in the Victoria street “plaza” of he RCMP building, nor will outdoor cafes line the streets around the building.

It will simply be another building which will not be part of the heart of PG. The courthouse on 3rd and George still has a better stab at being that heart. It was for a few years on summer Saturday mornings.

It has just undergone a heart attack. Will it be resurrected?

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html

From an entry by the anonymous IBI Group of architects comes this description of the building which accompanied an entry into a design competition in 2010.

“The building’s iconic nature, spatial arrangement and massing are inspired by forest / mountain meadows, the confluence of two major mountain rivers surrounding the City’s downtown and recent major river ‘winter ice jam’ events. DNA and fingerprint evidence information became a series of smaller scale inspirations for detail features that enhance the broader iconic imagery. The design response intertwines the broader goals and imagery inspirations into a rich and meaningful iconic community landmark.

“Drawing inspiration from local forests and meadows, the prominent arched front public elevation, punctured by a line of symbolic transparent tree like columns and trellis structures frame the urban plaza. The meadow trails flow through and into the site as the two main pedestrian entry routes and confluence together at a public entrance lobby. The Emergency Operation centre is reminiscent of the sculptural shape of river ‘ice jams’. This inspiration is reinforced by the jagged sidewalk slabs that run through the ‘winter’ northern meadow in contrast to the ‘summer’ southern meadow with its free flowing curved sidewalk and rainwater collection channel.

“The Detention Wing is clad in coloured glazing strips reminiscent of the DNA inspiration. Constructed directly behind the DNA themed detention wall glazing is Alberta Research Council’s new direct heat storage system using Phase Change Material technology.”

This is supposed to be the description by the IBI Group.

Wow. Ice jams. Trees. Meadows. DNA. Mountains. Who knew, eh????

In case someone think I’m joking, here is the link.

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=14262

The land this building sits on cost the City $2.75 Million. The land for the Wood Innovation Building cost the City $2 Million, plus change. So we can say the land alone for both these building cost taxpayers $5 Million dollars. Quite a chunk of change.

At the same time the City bought this land they had land all over the City already paid for that could have been used for these buildings.

4th and Scotia for the Police Station, and the old CKPG and Outrigger property for the WIDC. Plus other options.

So that is what I mean by wasting tax dollars.

“At the same time the City bought this land they had land all over the City already paid for that could have been used for these buildings.”

That is what happens when they decide that they can control downtown development by acquiring land. That was their strategy ….. did not work so far.

Gus, I think Michael Green is the architect, but a lot of the aggressive details on pushing the structure to its maximum comes from Equilibrium (structural engineers). They take basic conventional materials and engineer it to be sleek and fashionable. Really was impressed on the way the lines are sleek at the airport.

The city of Prince George does need to divest in the property investments. This has been a strain on the city coffers.

“A fitting building for the Crime Captial(sic) of Canada.”

I don’t believe some biased statistical BS just because it is printed in some sorry excuse for a newsmagazine!

I can’t wait to see where the Tim Hortons sign goes