Inkless Wells

 Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Hey look: a challenge to the national imagination, just for a change

by Paul Wells on Friday, June 26, 2009 12:28pm - 20 Comments

New Wells column, in which I (a) run 24 Sussex down; (b) call for its demolition; (c) address the inevitable rebuttal that this would be the wanton destruction of a heritage property (the short version: no it wouldn’t); (d) — and this is where it gets fun, I hope — launch an open call for proposals from this country’s professional architects for the design of a new residence for Canada’s prime ministers.

For the money it would take to fix the old house, about $12 million, I am certain we could build a far superior new house. I am rather serious about this. There’s a one-month deadline for submissions; we’ll publish the best ideas; and maybe we can remind people that architecture can be exciting. I have no idea whether any serious practitioners of the craft will bite. If they do this could be really fun.

HERITAGE COLUMN-TOPIC UPDATE: I should acknowledge, as I did in January, that the idea of tearing down 24 Sussex came from Maureen McTeer. The idea of calling for bids to replace it follows logically, but I believe I’m the first person to actually do it.

Tags: , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Anon

    "(the short version: no it wouldn’t)"

    Spare me.

  • John D

    For the money it would take to fix the old house, about $12 million, I am certain we could build a far superior new house.

    I have lived in cities with this philosophy and trust me, it ain't pretty.

  • A Velshi

    Build a new home? That's a terrible idea. It'll be nothing but $12 million worth of doodads. http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/this_old_sta…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

      You've overlooked the possibility that an architect might come up with a stately design that doesn't include infandous doodads.

  • Auntie EM

    The challenge for the new 24 Sussex should be to design the most environmentally sustainable home for that $12 million. It should be a showpiece of ingenuity in energy efficiency and waste reduction. What a clear message it would send to everyone!

    Then, of course, it needs to be ready for a new PM that actually cares about the enironment to live as host in it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/hellomike hellomike

    They should probably blow up 10 & 12 Downing, too. They're not very practical.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/hellomike hellomike

    They should probably blow up 10 & 12 Downing, too. They're not very practical! Who needs those little apartments, anyway?

    • Wotcher?

      Yeah, Buckingham Palace is getting pretty old and draughty too. Probably time to tear that down and build something new.

      • Lord Kitchener's Own

        Ah, so 24 Sussex, built in 1868 by "some random guy" and used as the PM's residence since 1951, is the Canadian equivalent of Buckingham Palace, begun in 1703 by the First Duke of Buckingham and Normanby, and used as a Royal Residence since 1837.

        That just makes me sad, and makes me want to tear it down EVEN MORE.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      Yes, because a random house that has housed Canadian PMs since Saint Laurent randomly happened to move into it in 1951 is roughly equivalent to a house first given up to the UK's First Lord in 1733 by King George II.

      Trying to save 24 Sussex by comparing it's 58 year history to Number 10's 276 year history might not be your most effective strategy.

  • William

    –Best advice you`ve given all year. 24 Sussex is supposed to be a functioning residential home—not a museum. A modern progressive nation should be able to find a way to build a architecturally and environmentally sound house that can also reflect the past—–I`ll do it for 11.9 million.

  • Dave

    Successive tenants have added all manner of extensions, inside and out. The rules of heritage property protection have been ignored for almost as long as 24 Sussex has been a famous address.

    By the same standards then, NCC Commissioner Wells, we ought to tear down East Block, West Block, Rideau Hall, and the Bank of Canada.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

    I disagree whole heartedly with you Mr.Wells. That building is a national landmark and should be preserved. I have watched to many heritage homes fall due to the almighty dollar. What replaced them was never as significant.

    If they want a new home for the Prime Minister, fine build one on a different piece of land. Leave 24 Sussex to the people who actually give a damn about it.

    • –dB

      Building a new Prime Ministerial residence elsewhere is actually a pretty good idea. I'm not entirely opposed to demolishing 24 Sussex, but I'd be concerned about the way a new building would add or subtract from the incredible piece of land it sits on. Of course, it would double the $10 M commitment. But that's no reason to stop it because, hey, stimulus money.

  • inge

    Didn't Maureen McTeer recently suggest something similar (tearing down and building something new)? I believe that she is something of an authority on the subject.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

      Indeed she did. I should make that clearer. Instant update…

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    To a certain extent, I don't care what we do, as long as we get to doing something.

    Heritage building or not, 24 Sussex is an embarrassment. Fix it up properly, or raze it to the ground and build something new, but for Pete's sake I say we should spend some money and DO IT. Take $20 million, do it right, and set up a fund for continuing maintenance and improvements.

    I say definitely keep the address, but the building? I can take it or leave it.

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Hate to pile on Mr. Wells…but for a country where the original inhabitants lived in cones made of poles and animal skins – and settlers didn't do much better with wooden shacks – any structure built of stone that needs a little TLC is OK in my books.
    Course – having grown up in the UK where casrtles stand for a thousand years has probably coloured my thinking in this dept…

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      any structure built of stone that needs a little TLC is OK in my books.

      I guess.

      I think one could also argue though that this sort of thinking is how a nation's Prime Minister ends up living in a random and uninspiring "structure built of stone" with a glorious 58 year "history".

  • Anon

    Here's an idea. Sell 24 Sussex to — let's say, Frank Stronach, for a zillion dollars — then buy a decent Rockcliffe or Dow's Lake property for 3-4M.

    Problem solved.

Previous

Next

From Macleans