It’s time to tear down 24 Sussex

Paul Wells is launching a call for bids to design the PM a new house

by Paul Wells on Friday, June 26, 2009 9:00am - 65 Comments

It’s time to tear down 24 SussexIt has no fire sprinklers. Its walls are lined with asbestos. Its plumbing and wiring would not pass muster in any other house in Ottawa. It is drafty. Its air conditioners make a racket. It has, by all accounts, hideous carpeting on the stairs.

It has not had a thorough makeover in half a century. Fixing it in 2006 would have cost $10 million. Fixing it now will certainly cost more. Whenever the repairs begin, the tenants will have to vacate the property for at least a year, probably more. It was not built for its august purpose and it does not bear its burden gracefully. It oppresses its residents—though they are required by the unbreakable codes of populism to deny any problem—and it doesn’t uplift the nation. Frankly it doesn’t even do much for the neighbourhood.

It is the Prime Minister’s residence at 24 Sussex Drive, and it is time to tear the sucker down.

This will not go over well in certain circles. I’d call them “heritage” circles, except there is hardly any heritage left in the place, if there ever was any. It was built in 1868 by a lumber baron named Joseph Merrill Currier for his third wife, Hannah. Currier was also a member of Parliament and dabbled in various other unsavoury trades: rail transport, postal delivery, newspaper publishing. The house he built on the bluffs overlooking the Ottawa River didn’t even become a prime minister’s residence until 1951, when Louis St. Laurent moved in. So the list of PMs who never lived there—King, Laurier, Macdonald, Kim Campbell—is at least as impressive as the list of those who did. (Kim didn’t have the job long enough to move in.)

Now even if there were some national mandate to preserve the houses of Joseph Merrill Currier for future generations, that mandate would have been violated long ago. 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.

I have never set foot in the house, though I have been an occasional guest on its lovely back lawns. Every summer the tenants invite members of the press gallery, usually through gritted teeth, to a garden party. This year the lobster sandwiches were excellent. Laureen Harper told us funny stories about hiking. Then she turned around and headed bravely back inside, and we all felt a little wistful at her burden.

Well, I overstate things. “I’d live there,” one former frequent visitor tells me, “so let’s not pretend it’s a collapsing tool shed or anything.” But he followed with a list of “structural challenges” that included a leaky roof and, well, the sunroom: “To call it drafty would be an insult to open windows.”

So look, it probably won’t collapse onto Stephen Harper tonight. It can be renovated into ship-shape condition if Harper and Michael Ignatieff (and yes, yes, you too, Elizabeth May) simply agree that the winner of the next election will not reside at 24 Sussex until it has been fixed. But it will still be a half-heritage heffalump with assorted odd bits sticking out. It will continue to be outclassed by the stunning, proudly eccentric French Embassy next door, one of the most extraordinary jewels of art deco architecture anywhere in the world.

That $10-million repair bill—which has surely grown since the estimate was made three years ago—gives us room to dream. Do you know who just bought a $10-million house? Conan O’Brien. Do you know who else has a $10-million house? Hank Azaria, the voice of Apu on The Simpsons. I’m thinking if Apu can live well, so can our own nation’s leaders.

So let’s start over. Tabula rasa, ladies and gentlemen! Surely we are no longer still just a nation of hewers of wood, drawers of water, and patchers of drywall. We can create anew! We have architects and builders to beat the world and house a king, or at least a moderately well-respected public servant!

Just think of the stimulus a new public works project would provide. Not just economic stimulus, although I have it on high authority that you can’t build a house these days without putting shovels in the ground. Designing one of the country’s most visible buildings would stimulate imaginations too. So let’s hear it. Bing Thom, what would you build for our country’s first family? Saucier + Perotte? Jack Diamond? (No fair putting a trap door in, Jack. The tenant won’t always be a Conservative.)

I’m serious. This page is launching a call for bids. I want the recognized professional architects of Canada to design a new house for the Prime Minister. What can we build on a bluff overlooking the Ottawa River these days for, say, $12 million? It has to house an average-sized family comfortably. It needs space for them to play, relax, stay in shape, contemplate. It is not a functional government building, but in these days of telecommuting it will need spaces for the breadwinner to work, meet staff and pesky reporters, and welcome visiting dignitaries. Sometimes the premiers will be over to fix health care or the Constitution. There will have to be room at the big dining room table for 13 guests.

Make it green. Make it Internet-friendly. Make it secure—Jean Chrétien could tell you stories about prowlers. Make it beautiful. And make it snappy, because you’ve got a month to send in your (obviously preliminary, sketchy) ideas. Mail your proposals to “PM’s House” at Maclean’s, 150 Wellington Street, Suite 403, Ottawa, K1P 5A4. Or email them to inklesswells@gmail.com. Deadline for receipt of submissions is Thursday, July 23. We’ll publish the best ideas in this magazine soon after. To your drafting tables, ladies and gentlemen! A nation’s honour is at stake.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

    Advocacy for architectural preservation seems to routinely involve spending other people's money to satisfy the nostalgic itch of a fervent few.

  • Scott M.

    So Paul, have you received any bites yet? Any major architects indicating they are making an effort to put something together for you?

  • Rubiks

    Haha. I doubt it.

    Considering:

    a) This is not a legitimate call for proposals. Anything submitted would have no chance of being actualized, but some chance at getting published. He might get some students.

    b) Wells just childishly insulted architects everywhere (Doo-Wah Diddy Diddy Down Diddy Do)

    c) Architects actually like buildings, believe it or not, especially if they are nationally significant, 141 year old limestone beauties.

    d) Anyone who claims to be able to design and build a revolutionary, 'green', national landmark for under 12 million dollars is definitely not a 'major' architect of any sort and is probably lying about the cost.

  • James

    Canada's "First Family"? Even putting aside the adoption of an odious republican Americanism, It's the family of a prime minister you're talking about, not any head of state. And, as such, the incumbent doesn't warrant the use of a palace. Fix up 24 Sussex and be done with it; there's no use disguising republicanism behind an architectural facade.

  • CourtGQuinn

    Years ago while living in Ottawa and walking around Parliment Hill… i thought that the parking lot below the Supreme Court and House of Commons should be used for other means. Why not build a 500 unit apartment building there to house MP's and senators? Rather then giving allowances for living/housing expenses and having members live throughout the region, the government should build one centralized structure close to where they work. Build something worthy of awe, yet doesn't overtower the supreme court and parliment buildings. Perhaps MP's would respect and listen to each others opinions more if they not only worked together, but lived together also. Give the PM the penthouse suite.

    • CourtGQuinn

      How many people would upgrading of 24 Sussex employ? Perhaps a few dozen trades-people at any given time. Put a few thousand to work building a bigger project that allows for government as a whole to become more efficient. The individual MP costs for scattered housing and the drivers to move from all around Ottawa to the Hill is not a small government expenditure. As it stands today…do the children of Liberal/Conservative/Bloc/NDP MP's know each other? Imagine housing government members in one structure under family floor lines rather then government partisan lines. Give MP's with big families bigger units inside such a building. Singles could live on certain floors and families on others. Have a common area for the building members and the public at large that is great and inspiring and open. The tone inside the House of Commons would change instantly under such a project. Aside from this new "MP Place" concept, perhaps the MP's should have a common camp area for summer and common chalet area for winter. So the ability to get fresh air from Ottawa working/living conditions are there.

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

    How about the best of both ideas?

    Find a suitable location (other than 24 Sussex), knock down whatever is there and build something fabulous, something worthy, something that meets all the needs. Set your budget at $1.00 per Canadian, I'll send my portion today.

    Then when its done whoever replaced Ignatieff / Harper can move in and 24 Sussex can be fixed up a bit and turned into a museum or something similar: a monument of sorts to the Prime Ministers of Canada.

  • Meany

    Hehehe it never ceases to amaze me how Canadians are so cheap on some things.

    "12 million for a PM's rez? Outrageous! Put him and the family in a motel 6! If that's not good enough, he can bugger off"
    - typical Canadian voter.

    There's a very good reason the damned building is falling down (see above quote). No opposition leader would be able to resist calling the PM of the day out for building a "Taj Mahal" for himself (even if all he's trying to do is fix the window that's been broken for the last 5 years), while Canadians are getting layed off by the thousand. Cheap, dirty, and oh SO effective politics.

    Unfortunately, this nation of misers will build the PM a new house once the current one literally collapses. Until then, let's hope all our Prime Ministers are good with duct tape, and more importantly, let's hope all foreign dignitaries are hosted over at the GG's pad, and not the PM's.

  • Devin C.

    While debating renovation versus demolition, isn't there always the third option of moving the residence elsewhere? I admit a lot of the prime real estate in Ottawa is already spoken for, but NCC parks and green space are federal land…

    Without getting bogged down deciding where the residence should be, I think there's a distinction that needs to be made between the tradition of the Prime Minister living at 24 Sussex and the heritage associated with the residence. Sure, the building has a history dating back to the mercantile class of early Ottawa. But there's no connection between the building's heritage and a prime ministerial tradition until a little over a half century ago. Does this constitute a Canadian tradition?

    In a country now 142 years old, I suspect creating a new home that embraces Canadian vision and talent, designed specifically for a Prime Minster with various considerations already taken into account, would be looked back upon as a defining moment in history.

    As time passes and future Canadians walk by 24 Sussex, a small plaque would remind them of how very brief a mere 58 years is.

  • joyce

    Wells has it right but my question is, "why can't some wealthy donor provide $$$$$ for a new home"? If we have donors available, the taxpayers should not be on the hook. It is time for us to place pride in our Prime Minister's residence and the longer we wait, the more expensive the building will become. We are not wasting any historical building. Perhaps leave it alone & build elsewhere.

  • Kate

    wow thos os the most retarded Ive ever heard wow Paul biggest idiot ever if the walls were lined with asbestos they would have had to be out of their long time!! and big deal its the heating system-buy a new one! and once again rip up the blood carpet and put a new one down like wow then at the end-“well ive never actually set foot in the house''-Retard(Aka Paul Wells)

  • wontchangeathing

    WHAT KIND OF NORMAL HOUSEHOLD HAS FIRE SPRINKLERS?!?!
    None that I know of. And really, this is what Canada is concerned about? No one is concerned about the fact that many people in Canada go WITHOUT a house ?!?! It kills me that some Canadians are more worried about the fact that the person who makes all the calls in this country ( a lot of which we don't agree with) does not have a state of the art home like MOST Canadians don't?! Come on people, get off your high horses and start thinking about the people who could actually use $10 million in this country to buy food because the economy is so terrible.

  • http://phantomobserver.com PhantomObserver

    I have to disagree with Mulletaur. If you ask Canadians about the PM's residence, "24 Sussex" is an address to them, nothing more. They don't know what the building looks like, have never seen the interior, etc. Which means that *because* the physical layout and design is unknown, "heritage" arguments no longer apply.

  • Mulletaur

    Fair enough, PO. We can move Harper out of 24 Sussex, renovate it, and charge admission to tourists for entry. Harper can pay for his own digs. Actually, his Party is rich, they can pay for his house.

From Macleans