Empress Theatre discussions begin
Since before this blog began, discussions have been held in NDG over what to do with the Empress Theatre (Cinema V) and it’s a safe bet the building is in worse shape now than it was 20 years ago. The CDN-NDG public consultation page includes a tab for the Empress.
Jebediah Palindrome 23:08 on 2020-11-03 Permalink
I listened in on the consultation. Seems like they’re deadset on demolishing the building, keeping the facade and not committing to any future vocation until they get the public’s full input…
… which is kinda what torpedoed a lot of the other proposals. Too much ‘let’s put everything we need under one roof’.
All NDG needs is a centrally-located multi-purpose performance space, something that can be used for cinema, theatre, comedy and music. It would be such a game changer.
dwgs 10:32 on 2020-11-04 Permalink
Trying to keep the building is a non starter at this point and there isn’t much of the interior that is notable. Also, the facade isn’t in great shape either, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is beyond saving.
Kate 11:09 on 2020-11-04 Permalink
I tend to agree, sadly, with dwgs. The building is done. They should put up a new building with some ancient Egyptian motifs in the façade to evoke the design of the Empress.
Jebediah Pallindrome 14:32 on 2020-11-04 Permalink
I’m not so sure. I’ve been inside several times, it’s quite solidly built. Architects said so about five years ago. I think this is a situation where it looks worse than it is. Besides, generally speaking the greenest building is the one that’s already built.
dwgs 15:49 on 2020-11-04 Permalink
Jebediah when were you last inside? It hasn’t been heated in 7 years, which would mean lots of broken pipes, which would mean water damage. Two winters ago during the spring thaw water was pouring out of the second floor front windows for about a day and a half. You said it yourself, ‘generally speaking’. I don’t think that applies to a building which has been unoccupied for almost 30 years.
Kate 16:10 on 2020-11-04 Permalink
Not only unoccupied, but unoccupied after a fire.
Jebediah Pallindrome 17:48 on 2020-11-04 Permalink
@dwgs AFAIK no water or electricity has been ‘on’ in the bldg for many years. When I was last inside… in 2017 the building was structurally sound.
The Empress Theatre Foundation’s plan was to gut it and rebuild, but this would allow the preservation of the facade, volume, some of the floors and the scraps of artistic/architectural details that remain. It’s not insignificant what’s left. Architects and the city signed off on this.
Like it’s not at risk of falling over.
The borough’s plan is to keep just the facade, then figure out what to rebuild behind it, but only in response to the public’s input.
That’s what’s bedeviled this project from day one: too many irons in the fire, too many demands on one space.
ETF was opposed by another group in NDG that objected to the possibility of a bank being a commercial tenant, ignorant of the possiiblity that a bank could have brought in income necessary to fund cultural programming.
Either way… this project’s biggest obstacle is that what NDG needs is a performance venue to help stimulate restaurant/bar business on Sherbrooke West and given the borough some much needed entertainment, but all the people involved in the project are old and still think ‘the kids don’t go see live music anymore’. When I was on ETF’s board, I was the only person under 30, the only person with even a tangential connexion to the local arts and entertainment scene.
The city really needs to deal with the old movie palaces in a cohesive manner, rather than piecemeal. You can’t have a vibrant cultural scene when all the theatres have been turned into housing, IMO.
dwgs 09:02 on 2020-11-05 Permalink
I’m all for having a performance / cultural space but at this point that would be better served by building new. The costs of adapting existing space to modern needs would likely be substantially higher than building from scratch. Unless you are a structural engineer I don’t think that a brief visit 3 years ago qualifies you to judge the viability of the structure.
Jebediah Palindrome 13:39 on 2020-11-05 Permalink
^ I’m only going off what the structural engineers and architects said three years ago, which was that the bldg was structurally sound and that there was no need to demolish it
The idea demolishing and building anew is less expensive is often inaccurate. It’s certainly not the green option.
The concern here is that the city will demolish it with no plan on what to do with the site and then you’ve got an empty lot for a year or two and then it’s condos.
Orr 22:28 on 2020-11-05 Permalink
“The idea demolishing and building anew is less expensive is often inaccurate.”
Let’s take a moment to recall the Mordecai Richler gazebo, and the fact it took five years and seven hundred thousand dollars to rebuild this gazebo.