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.

"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.

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.

I expect that the person that you get your medical advice from has some letters after his or her name, and you would not have it any other way.

Just to clarify, I would guess that you have at least 2 letters after your name, but you just don't use them as often as Lloyd does.

My bottom line is that knowledgeable experts do have a place in the world; they should not be discounted or ignored out of hand, nor should they be believed without question or reflection.

As in most things, so it should probably be with official residences. If it is not necessary to change them, it is necesary that they not be changed (with apologies to Viscount Falkland).

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.

Maybe there's a conservation argument for not demolishing it, but the appeal to tradition fails (Laurier House is much more historic, IMHO) so even if the building is "a part of our heritage," the Prime Minister living in it is not. The status quo argument comes down to saying that having the PM live in a dull, shoddy old building is essential to Canadian identity; a variation on the grand theme of no change, ever, ever, please, please. Given that school of thought, it seems to me that a new, contemporary house for the PM would not only be cheap, practical, and rather uplifting, it is actually an essential first step on the new Canadian Anti-Stodginess Campaign. En avant!

To be clear: Mr. Alter, B. Arch, OAA, TSA, Pres., ACO (Singin' Doo-Wah Diddy Diddy Down Diddy Do) argues his side well, and obviously I knew a lot of people would feel as he does. I'm certain that two of them are Stephen Harper, who would live in a pine box if it would burnish his populist street cred, and Michael Ignatieff, who is all about fitting in instead of surprising anyone. So Mr. Alter, BAOAATSAPACO (Singin' DWDDDDD) is certain to win this one.

But I'm not gonna get all flustered just because a guy who advocates for architectural conservancy wants some architecture conserved. I think a lot of people would be a bit surprised to learn you can't build an interesting building for $12 million. I know a lot of rich people in Ottawa, and not a one of them lives in a $12 million house.

I think a house whose only tenants hate to live in it has failed. I reject the argument that failure should be a protected part of Canada's heritage, although I recognize that it very often is.

What about Laurier House? That's a beautiful building, it's all the PM really needs (cf. Laurier, King), it's likewise very close to the Hill, and it's got tradition up the wazoo.

President Mitterrand wanted to leave his mark on France for generations to come. So he commissioned and built 'la Pyramide du Louvre'. Not everybody liked it at first, but it has grown on people. It is a huge modernist contrast to the historical buildings around it, but it works. The architect had a vision that he carried though on – quite a beautiful one, I think.

So what do we do ? In the most transparently derivative way possible, we attach a sideways pyramid to the ROM – only we don't even get that right, because, instead of being a pure steel and glass structure like La Pyramide, totally transparent, radiating light at night, this structure is mainly opaque, and seems to be a copy of work done by the architect (Libeskind) for Denver's art gallery. It looks like the pyramid caps attached to Master Pain a.k.a. Betty in Kung Pow ! Enter the Fist and is just as ridiculous. And in no way original.

The ROM is a good case of architectural disaster, IMHO. Basically the ROM went out and tried to sex itself up; and, as often, it only managed to tart itself up. Architects, like all artists, need a firm hand; if the patron doesn't know what he wants, how can the artist guess? A lack of clear function makes for a lack of nice building. In this case, if we told the applicant architects, "Give us something the PM can live in, can play host in; that allows for tight security; that would look good on a postcard; and that's original without being wacky," then the architects can deliver. The ROM didn't do that, seemingly.

I agree with parts of this. I tried agreeing with all of it but my head started to hurt.

Answer : yes.

What really makes me angry is the number of buildings connected to our history as a nation (this mainly means political history, but is not confined to it) which have been ripped down because they don't come up to some colonial mentality imposed standard for what is valuable. Mainly ripped down because they don't meet some foreign imposed standard of what is a 'pure' architectural style. Or because its history is confused or messy or inconvenient because it's no longer politically correct.

Do you think the British vandalize their own culture just because they don't fit with current ideas ? Not on your nelly. They celebrate good and bad as British warts, bad parts and all. Wells wants to rip down 24 Sussex because it doesn't meet some bizarre standard of 'heritage' – seemingly because the building was not built all at once. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

In the meantime, we take a perfectly beautiful heritage building, the ROM, and build on an abortion of an addition which is not only ugly and not fitting with the style of the building as it was built and added onto, but wasn't even built to the original much more attractive design which was intended. If you want to do something original and daring, you should actually try to develop some taste first.

We need to stop imposing the cultural standards of our former colonial powers (United Kingdom, France, United States, etc.) on ourselves. We need to start thinking for ourselves for once. Actually, we need to start thinking for once. It would make a pleasant change.

It is not clear why there needs to be an official residence for the Prime Minister. State banquets and ceremonies are held at Rideau Hall. It is rare for government meetings of any sort to be held at 24 Sussex. It really isn't analogouts to either the US presidential palace or to No. 10 Downing Street. Both are as much places of business as residences. The British do provide Chequers as a country home, of course, as well, similar (although grander) to Harrington Lake.