Grounded for good

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/10/2011 (5190 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The opening of the new terminal building at the airport is generating all kinds of buzz around town, but you can excuse a few retired architects if they’re not fully sharing in the excitement.

That’s because their baby is being closed down and prepared for demolition.

Bernard Brown, a former principal with Green Blankstein Russell and co-designer of the 47-year-old building that is entering its last few hours of use, said he doesn’t get emotionally attached to his projects but he did express a few tinges of regret.

“The sadness is that the (old) building can’t be rescued. I concur that it may be inadequate for the needs for the air terminal today,” he said, noting the building has been valued at more than $100 million.

John Petersmeyer, a former principal with GBR and Stantec Consulting, which acquired GBR seven years ago, feels the same way.

“I find it regrettable that a compelling use hasn’t been found to use a portion of the existing building, such as the glass arrivals and departures area. I think it’s a real gem,” he said.

The Winnipeg Airports Authority issued a request for proposals several years ago in the hopes of finding a way of repurposing the building, but none of the proposals was to its liking.

As much as the new building is miles ahead of the old one in every way, the same was true back in 1964, Brown said.

“Prior to the building we designed, Stalag huts served as the airport. We were stepping over petrol drums and the like to get on to planes,” he said.

Indeed, the old building was built when you could waltz onto an aircraft without going through scanning machines, and you could take out your lighter and spark up a cigarette whenever you wanted. Terrorist attacks weren’t on anybody’s radar screen, either.

“Too much is happening in the world of security. It’s a huge issue now,” Petersmeyer said. “The movements of baggage and (use of) X-rays is far different today than it was at the dawn of jet travel. The decision to go with a new airport was the right decision. It’s a wonderful building. It has been very carefully executed. It will be a tremendous asset for the next 40 to 50 years to come. I’m convinced of that.”

Petersmeyer said the rule of thumb is if revamping expenses are projected at two-thirds of what it would cost to construct a new building, you go with new.

“To have retooled the (old) building would have been a tremendous can of worms. Sometimes if you try to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear all you get is a deaf pig,” he said.

geoff.kirbyson@freepress.mb.ca