KGV, Dodges the Bullet

Monday, January 09, 2006 08:59 PM

King George V School 1922

King George V School is on life support, but in two weeks, Prince George City Council will decide if it should pull the plug.

It has significant historical value,   it was built by an architect who, at the time of its construction was the Mayor of Prince George. It is the last survivor of the buildings that were constructed in the early 1920's which helped established Prince George as the administrative and business centre of the northern interior of B.C.

City Staff recommend it be demolished and some parts of it be used in a commemorative display in the new Duchess Park School. City Staff say there is no money to save , demolish , refurbish , or operate KGV. There are estimates demolition would involve spending $300,000.00 to remove mould and asbestos, although it could be argued that cost would have to be covered if the building was refurbished. The cost estimates to "rehabilitate" the building range from around $2 million to just over $4million.

Community Heritage Commission Chairman, Jo Graber delivered a passionate plea to spare KGV. He noted how frustrating it is to have the Province bring about a Heritage Act, but when it comes to saving such institutional buildings ( which technically the Province owns) there seems to be no Provincial effort . Graber also noted the discussion of KGV was placed under the "Best Corporate Practices" section of the Council Agenda "This isn't just about money" said Graber, who argued it should have been presented as an item under "Growing a Proud and Confident Community" as cultural matters rank among some of the more important issues for taxpayers. Graber says the Heritage Commission needs a little more time, time to talk with the Minister of Education to see if there is anything that can be done to preserve this building. "That is not to say that any other option other than saving the building is unacceptable, it is just that any other option should be secondary" Graber told Council.

Not all members of Council saw things his way.   While Councillor Don Bassermann thinks parts of the school could be incorporated into a special commemorative display, he isn't convinced the whole 1922 building should be spared but he voted n favour of the two week deferral. Councillors Scott and Munoz voted against the deferral, with Scott saying he doubted the Ministry of Education would come across with anything, so the effort would be a waste of time. The Mayor was on the same wavelength as Councilor Scott saying he didn't see how the building had any heritage value at all "I know other people have mentioned the stair bannisters and the windows, and they can be saved in a special display, but I am not convinced this building has heritage value" said Mayor Kinsley.

School District 57 has to submit the plans for the new Duchess Park School within three months, so time is of the essence.

The two week deferral will allow time for the Mayor, or designate to meet with the Minister of Education to see what, if anything, can be done. Although willing to attend such a meeting, Mayor Kinsley did express a real fear about the real cost of saving KGV  "There is a real risk here" said Kinsley, "That if we get money for this, we will lose money somewhere else".

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 08:59 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Big_B on January 10 2006 9:34 AM

Tear it down!

What usefulness does the building have anyway?

It's an eyesore and it is gettin in the way of the School District building a new building.

Ask yourself this, are we here to serve old people, or are we going to put our money where our mouth is and build a new school for the kids? Whose interests are best served here? Are we once again paying lip service to the kids? We often say kids are worth it, but we don't believe it. At least our actions prove we don't.

Posted by: Foo738 on January 10 2006 12:38 PM

The purpose in keeping it wouldn't be to serve old people but rather to let the young people experience what life and school was like during the depression era.

Posted by: fedup on January 10 2006 3:22 PM

Kids don't care they have way more going on then this old building.We can never teach them what it was like lets face it this isn't for the kids.

Posted by: zoom on January 10 2006 4:08 PM

KGV has the same amount of Heritage as the Croft or Columbus. It might be better served as a transition house, instead of the old Backpacker hotel on Queensway

Posted by: owl on January 10 2006 4:11 PM

I find that most people will just hear what they want to hear.

Not only that, but most people, when they wish to promote something, will only state what they feel will further their intent.

I expect that some of you are business people of one sort or another. If you have been following this at all, you will know that the money requested to be spent on this is not just to ensure that the building is usable in today's world, that is, to rehabilitate the building, but to actually use the building once it is rehabilitated.

Having read the material available under the Council Agenda on the City's Web site, this building is about 18,000 square feet in size. It also identifies that the cost not only includes construction, but design consulting fees. By my calculation, it would thus cost about $120 per square foot.

I am not sure about the cost of building an office building these days, but I suspect that built with our favourite local building material – wood – including on the exterior of the building (did anyone notice the use of wood siding on the new airport, and Speedee Printers, instead of that industrial metal on the Northern?) that would be about the cost.

So, the key is to find a user for the building, because if we did, then the taxpayer would have to spend little additional money to keep it to the “heritage” standard. I believe there are provincial dollars for that sort of thing.

I wonder if the real lesson to be learned from all this isn’t to keep better care of your things. In the case of buildings, they can age like a fine wine, instead of turning sour like milk.

I especially liked the mayor’s quote in the paper today: “It looked like that place was thrown up to take care of a vastly growing population ……. It looks like the quality isn’t up where it should be.”

In the 1921 census, the total urban population was 2,053. The 1931 census showed a growth to 2,479. That is not a “vastly growing population”. That’s 40 people a year during the time this school was built.

Actually that is sort of interesting. We have a relatively stable population now, a decline in school enrollment due to the shift in demographics, closures of schools, yet we are building a new high school to replace an existing building which is about half the age of the building which has been around since 1922.

And the question to the class is: “Which generation made the best investment?”

Was it Duchess Park, or was it KGV which was “ … thrown up to take care of a vastly growing population?” Hint – the population of greater PG in 1961 was 13,877. In 1971 it was 33,101. In 1975 it was 61,509.

KGV has been around for 80 plus years. The jail was around for 10 years and has had to undergo about $5 million worth of correction to the outside face to get rid of shoddy design. And the jail that was there before sure was not an “old timer”. Parts of the old Duchess Park has been around for 50 or so years, and other parts don’t look like they are older than 30 or so and is being replaced.

End user? How about following in the footsteps of this Kelowna heritage structure which was a school built in the early 1920s? We can all go get a drink and talk about the goode olde days .... that'll keep us out of trouble while the kids smoke across the street in people's back lanes.

;-)

http://www.kelownaheritagefoundation.com/images/buildings_large/img0094f.jpg

Posted by: diplomat on January 10 2006 4:32 PM

Can't we get our priorities in order and focus on how we can persuade the city to fix the awful potholes and cracks in our streets?

For instance, just one example:

5th Avenue from Central Street to just beyond Carney Street is an obstacle course of suspension busting potholes!

Let's not talk about spending 4 million bucks on some old decrepit building when the streets are not safe to drive on!

Posted by: Percy on January 10 2006 7:57 PM

We have a limited amount of dollars that should be used in the the areas of most need.

We need to ask ourselves where is this limited amount of money best spent?

Where will the largest number of PG taxpayers or residents benefit from this expense?

Is this the most important, or the greatest need for our limited resources in our city today?

Forget about nostalgia. Forget about memory's of our past having any current importance to our existing youth.

They would prefer something they can use today to meet their needs, rather than some memory of how school was in the good old days for mom and dad or gramma and grampa.

Sorry to be so calous, but, we don't have the extra money to just preserve an old building that can't be useful for the needs of today.

There is only so much money to go around. We need to do the best we can with what we have to work with. We have elected our city leaders to decide what is in the best interest of our taxpayers. How many will really miss KGV? Percy

Posted by: Foo738 on January 10 2006 7:58 PM

Fed-Up: You sound very embittered and very young and very uneducated. You better believe the kids are going to care about where they come from

Posted by: camoose on January 10 2006 10:03 PM

Geez Percy, when I read your post "We don't have the extra money to just preserve an old building that can't be useful for the needs of today" I had to read it 3 times. I thought you were talking of the Parlaiment Buildings in Victoria. if the shoe fits....

Posted by: fedup on January 11 2006 2:47 PM

Fed-Up: You sound very embittered and very young and very uneducated. You better believe the kids are going to care about where they come from

Ha good one foo
I guess your right lets keep it you decide where we should cut is it medical care,schools we already have or maybe just keep on ignoring the roads as they fall apart in front of us?This is another Cameron st. bridge where is it going to end.As for education which you stated I don't have let me tell you I pay my fair share of taxes and do not want to see anymore wasted money education or not.Maybe if we didn't waste money on junk we could afford to send more kids to better schools?

Posted by: Foo738 on January 11 2006 5:20 PM

You are right fed-up. We can't fund everything from our City coffers. I would like to see Museum Grants explored if they haven't been already. They receive them right across Canada so why not Prince George. Restoring the building to its' original character instead of the stucco box it now is makes us eligible, in my opinion, for a heritage museum grant.

Posted by: peopleperson on January 14 2006 3:50 PM

it seems to me that quite a few of you haven't seen/bothered to read the "crescents neighbourhood" plan on the city website.
if you had you would notice that the area currently occupied by the former KGV building doesn't exist on the new plan. this plan was completed long before the city voted on it's future.
a done deal, as they say.

Posted by: peopleperson on January 14 2006 3:51 PM

it seems to me that quite a few of you haven't seen/bothered to read the "crescents neighbourhood" plan on the city website.
if you had you would notice that the former KGV building doesn't exist on the new plan. this plan was completed long before the city voted on it's future.
a done deal, as they say.

Posted by: peopleperson on January 14 2006 3:52 PM