Selling the Ring Houses, A Faustian Bargain (Guest Post by Laurie Adkin, Political Science)

The battle over the future of the historic early 20^th century houses (the Ring Houses) located on the north campus of the University of Alberta is a microcosm of the larger struggle for the soul of the university. Using the pretext of the UCP-inflicted budget cuts, the university’s senior administrators have chosen to get rid of the remaining historic houses located on the northwest corner of the campus. (The other six were torn down to build a parkade, in another example of soulless and short-sighted conceptions of “progress”’.) While senior administrators claim to have no plans, at present, for the space that will be opened up by removal of the Ring Houses, it is likely that there is, in fact, a plan to lease this land to commercial developers—in keeping with the drive to raise revenue from the university’s properties. Some development of this kind may make sense, depending on how and where it takes place, and to what ends. But razing structures or “developing’ lands that have historic, community, educational, and ecological importance cannot be justified on revenue-raising grounds alone, and certainly not if the promised revenue is to come from projects that contribute more to developers’ pocketbooks than to our communities’ needs.

The beauty of the proposals put forward by the University of Alberta Ring Houses Coalition is that they are rooted in the recognition that history shapes identity and is attached to place, and in a deep appreciation of how this place could constitute a crossroads for interconnected communities. The Coalition plan for the site responds to our needs for intergenerational, multi-use living and working space. It incorporates a childcare centre (something faculty, staff, and students have demanded for decades but has never been included in the university’s enormous capital spending on new buildings), housing for seniors, boutique hotel accommodation for visiting professors, researchers, and conference attendees, public and student study space, work and performance spaces for artists, and a brew pub, among other ideas—all thoughtfully integrated with existing university buildings and services. There are, in addition, opportunities for modelling green design, such as roof gardens and high-energy efficiency buildings. Preparation for new building could begin with careful archaeological excavation of the site to uncover its former uses by Indigenous inhabitants, and the new knowledge generated in this way could be incorporated into the design of buildings and exterior spaces.

This is the kind of plan for the area, incorporating the Ring Houses, that generates real passion and excitement about how this space could be enjoyed by students, staff, faculty, and visitors, and could serve as a hub connecting us to surrounding communities. The coalition put considerable thought into how the options they propose could be funded, and how they could produce revenue for the university.

But it seems that university administrators were uninterested in these proposals, choosing instead to sell the Ring Houses for a dollar each to a developer who will dismantle them and move them to another location (ironically, with some of the same uses in mind). Presumably, these administrators have received advice that some other use of this land would generate more revenue for the university. A tower with office, residential, and commercial space? Who knows? Because they aren’t telling us. Evidently, faculty, staff, students, and surrounding communities don’t get a vote on what happens to our campus. We haven’t been given the option to choose the convivial, imaginative proposals of the Coalition over other options. As a result, the university will lose a wonderful opportunity to model the values and knowledge that we profess through our teaching and research, for example, about the importance of early childhood education, intergenerational living, public space, environmental sustainability, and respect for the history of the land on which we live and work. We will miss the opportunity to strengthen our positive attachments to the university as a space of conviviality and community. We will lose an opportunity to show Edmontonians and Indigenous peoples that the university is their space, too.

The decision about the Ring Houses is an example of the larger struggle for the soul of the university in another way, too. A university worth its name should engage in a meaningful way with its surrounding communities. A university that has been subjected to savage budget cuts by a hostile government should be working hard to build support from the public. That is not happening here. How did senior administrators respond to citizens who had worked hard, over a period of eight months, to develop the proposals that were presented to President Flanagan and VP External Relations, Elan MacDonald, in July 2021? With a pat on the head. There was no follow-up engagement. Instead, the coalition received an email from President Flanagan on October 1^st informing them that the Ring Houses had been sold to a local developer. No explanation was offered as to why the administration had rejected the coalition’s proposal.

One of the Coalition’s co-chairs, David Ridley, who is the Executive Director of the Edmonton Heritage Council, says “the community approach on this (petitions, proposal, commentary, letters, call for moratorium and improved transparency and accountability in managing historic responsibility) [was] completely dismissed. At least, had no impact in the outcome, which simply proceeded as the University indicated earlier this year with the call for proposals for removal.” Another member of the Coalition says that the university did not respond “as would be expected of a public institution [that] valued relationships with its many communities. In this case, communities included students, alumni, and neighbours as well as professionals with pertinent heritage, architectural, policy, and research expertise.” The community “invested hundreds of hours of pro bono and volunteer time over eight months into efforts to assist and help the university.” More than 2,500 Edmontonians signed a petition asking the university to hold off on demolition of the houses and to consider ways to repurpose them. Most damningly, this coalition member concludes from the experience to date: “The voices of the community were simply not heard in a meaningful way, and much was dismissed as ‘passion’ rather than recognized as empirically-informed rational expertise, professional standards, and community expectation for baseline performance and ethics at a public institution.”

As a faculty member at the University of Alberta, I feel ashamed that our community was treated in this way by senior administrators. This is not how we build connections with the people of Alberta—with people who cared enough about our university to volunteer their precious time and expertise to help us find an attractive alternative to razing the campus’s heritage. And what did they receive in response? “Stonewalling” and “dismissal.”

What does this decision to sell and dismantle the Ring Houses say about what matters most to this university administration? What does its failure to engage seriously and respectfully with our community, or to give internal constituencies a voice in the decision say about its style of governance?