Opinion: U of S fudged facts on plan for seminary demolition

Article content

As members of the Friends of 114 Seminary Crescent — a collective of alumni, architects, planners, nationally recognized heritage professionals, faith representatives, and engaged citizens — we respectfully respond to University of Saskatchewan board chair Keith Martell’s recent column on the decision to demolish the former Lutheran Theological Seminary building.

Article content

Article content

Article content

We recognize the complexities the U of S board of governors must navigate. However, the column does not fully reflect the facts, the process, the genuine engagement efforts and serious opportunities offered by the community. In the interest of transparency and due diligence, we offer the following clarifications.

First, the expression of interest process, cited as evidence of public engagement, was constrained. It spanned approximately just eight weeks including the winter holidays when it was launched and provided limited access to the building — granted less than two weeks before the deadline and only after repeated requests.

Ogle Hall was off limits, and building drawings were not shared until late in the process. Despite inquiries, critical data needed to support accurate costing was not provided.

Proponents were explicitly told general financial estimates and plans — not firm commitments — were sufficient at this stage, as detailed figures would come in a second phase (which never occurred). Most significantly, the university did not share the updated $55 to $60 million Brook McIlroy estimate during or after the process.

Article content

Article content

These figures appear exceptionally high relative to local standards, according to Saskatchewan-based engineers, architects and planners with direct knowledge of the building. This lack of transparency undermines the integrity of the process.

Second, the assertion that the university would be responsible for funding restoration is puzzling. As required by the expression of interest process, submissions we were aware of clearly stated that costs would be borne by the proponent, through phased investments, partnerships, and funding strategies informed by regional precedent and professional oversight.

These were not aspirational visions, but informed proposals developed by experienced local professionals with a deep understanding of both the building and the community.

Third, the Indigenous-led proposal referenced by the chair was far more than “student housing.” It included onsite childcare, classroom and research space, Elder supports and culturally rooted services — all designed to help students from rural and northern communities transition to campus life.

Article content

The proposal responded to long-standing needs raised by Indigenous communities and reflected a serious act of reconciliation, aligned with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action and the university’s own stated values.

To dismiss its significance or the proponent’s commitment to fund the project is to miss a rare opportunity for meaningful, community-led collaboration.

We understand the board’s concerns around safety. However, the cited incidents reflect broader societal challenges, including housing insecurity and mental health. Viable proposals included immediate transfer of responsibility for the site and plans to secure and address safety concerns.

Demolition does not solve those problems — it erases a site with the potential to support those looking to find lasting solutions.

More broadly, this moment is not only about architecture. It is a test of institutional values: how reconciliation, heritage and public accountability are enacted. While fiscal responsibility is essential, universities must also model ethical leadership and long-view thinking.

Article content

114 Seminary Cres. has long stood as a place of reflection, education and understanding — values still urgently needed today. To suggest its loss is acceptable because other works by architect John Holliday Scott remain on campus is akin to burning a Picasso because others hang in the same gallery.

We are sending a renewed letter to the university’s board of governors, stewards of this publicly funded institution, respectfully requesting a pause in demolition and the convening of key stakeholders for overdue dialogue. Such a step would honour the principles of due process, good governance and reconciliation.

We offer this response in good faith, grounded in respect for the institution and the community it serves.

Colin Tennant, Lenore Swystun, Monica Kreuger, Richard Engel and Peggy Schmeiser wrote this on behalf of
the Friends of 114 Seminary Crescent.

Article content

Share your views

The StarPhoenix welcomes opinion articles. Click here to find out what you need to know about how to write one that will increase the odds it will be published. Send submissions to letters@thestarphoenix.com or ptank@postmedia.com.

Our websites are your destination for up-to-the-minute Saskatchewan news, so make sure to bookmark thestarphoenix.com and leaderpost.com. For Regina Leader-Post newsletters click here; for Saskatoon StarPhoenix newsletters click here

Article content