I like the idea of a design competition, but NONE of the architects that were cited here fill me with any hope; almost every. single. one. of their designs, with the exception of Massey Hall, is garbage, soulless modernist architecture. My biggest fear is that's what we'll get. It's exactly what happened when the Chateau Laurier tried to build an expansion, it was ugly as shit. It looked like a soulless box grafted onto an architectural masterpiece, then we were all gaslighted when we were told "it incorporates historic elements" by including strips of copper. We don't want modernist bullshit, we WANT an appropriate piece of architecture that matches our history.
Yes. I want a house that's a neo-gothic reproduction and matches parliament. Yes. I want I Victorian style building that would be at home sitting next to the Chateau Laurier. Yes. I want a Gothic-Revival style that would match the churches of Quebec. Yes i want a railway hotel inspired house that would match the Hotels of Banff, Jasper, and Waterlakes National Park. Yes I want a replica Scottish-Baronial style home that would be right at home with the Museum of Nature. I was Canada's house to reflect our ACTUAL architectural tradition.
NO, I do NOT want a Modernist glass façade of straight flat lines like the Chateau Laurier did. No, I do NOT want the simplistic modernist bullshit they're building directly across the street from Parliament as part Block 2 renovations. The IMMENSE public backlash against the Chateau Laurier design shows that Canadians agree. Poll, after poll, support that average people love designs that feature artisanry, not glass faces and straight lines.
Architects seem allergic to honouring the past. And this panel, gives me little hope that we'll see something other than a soulless abomination that at best speaks lip-service to our rich architectural past, and doesn't really represent Canadians at all.
Of course, a soulless box loved by the expert class, hated by regular Canadians, and completely out of touch with our traditions, might represent the reality of current Canada better than anything else possibly could.
Since I am in Alberta and I have never seen a red maple leaf, looking at 24 Sussex, I can at least see a nexus with those grand CP Hotels in Alberta, and their wonderful architecture, and 24 Sussex. Fix the exterior it and do what you want in the inside. I have had enough with the erusure of Canadian culture and history.
Odd the author neglected to mention the last design competition and jury decision the feds undertook for the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan. At the end of the competition the Liberals overruled the jury and went with the more politically correct choice. Taxpayer ended up paying for both designs.
Excellent, well-written rebuttal. However, the last sentence says it all. Can the Canadian government build a single house? Not on budget, not on time, not what’s required, not worthy of pride. That’s my guess.
1) What architects love and cherish in a design doesn't necessarily correlate with what the public will love and cherish in a design. I'm more conversant with the world of classical music than architecture, but there's a lot of classical musicians who gravitate towards "difficult", "challenging" works while eschewing "popular" classical compositions as boring and overplayed. The problem? Those "popular" classics are popular because they're incredible works enjoyed by almost everybody. Music is a business; architecture is a business. At the end of the day, are we going to get something that appeals to the public, or are we going to get something that an architect has designed to appeal to other architects and win a juried competition?
2) Selecting a design in a juried competition is just the starting point. It's still going to have to navigate the process of translating that into something buildable, compatible with the budget, and incorporating all of the various requirements and requests that stakeholders are going to try to inject. Is that clever, beautiful design selected by the jury something that's actually going to successfully run that gauntlet, or is it going to be compromised and emerge as something far worse than a less ambitious design at the outset?
The problem is "Canadians of exceptional talent and judgment". Covid showed that all of our institutions for identifying such people, also known as "experts", are worthless, even for relatively simple and objective fields like public health. A field like architecture, which naturally includes far more subjectivity, is completely hopeless.
While I agree with the author that a design competition is valuable and appropriate I do worry that the collective "hive mind" of the panel may lead to an unnecessarily "weird rather than wonderful" result.
A decision that will leave us lesser, intellectually deficient beings of no importance, scratching our heads as to why we're paying for yet another architectural wet dream?
I don't recall Jen and Matt making the argument that 24 Sussex should be kept but that the Prime Minister's residence should look similar to the Fairmont hotels, etc. The suggestion is spot-on because those buildings are recognizable in style across the country where they are seen by the citizenry on a regular basis.
If I interpret Mr. Sealy correctly he believes that competitions are an answer to bureaucratic inertia presumably thinking government will just do what is easy. However, he seems to have cherry-picked the Vietnam War Memorial and the Sydney Opera House as proof that these selection processes get it right. I am sure there are multiple examples where they get it terribly wrong.
Further, his other examples of the Integral House or the fire station may be interesting and forward looking to an architect and the commissioning individuals, but I bet they leave the general public cold. By comparison I'd rather have something that would look at home in Angkor Wat, than these examples.
Ultimately, does it resonate with the general public? Does it reflect history? A national symbol built by hewers of wood, drawers of water, and quarriers of stone is the underpinnings of what this country is.
Architectural one-offs, are often at best curiosities and suggest an aesthetics, and by implication norms, that are recognized and accepted by the very few.
The gulf between whatever is being called "architectural value" here and what ordinary Canadians recognize as historically and nationally significant is exactly why there shouldn't have been a competition. It's not all about showing off expertise. (Love the swipe that regular people are too uniformed to know what the building looks like, too.)
I too noted “the swipe”! While I live in North Vancouver I have a pretty good idea of the appearance of 24 Sussex. I do believe the process being removed from government is essential, however do not necessarily see the necessity of creating an architectural masterpiece. Our editors have a decided tendency to want everything done yesterday and my view is it is important to have it done right, creating a comfortable, livable residence for our Prime Minister.
The alternative to a design competition is design by committee. That has given us a lot of bland public buildings, many in the brutalist style so disliked by the commentators.
We can build beautiful things, like the examples cited. I would add Calgary’s main newest public library to the list, a spectacular building. And Toronto’s City Hall, a continuing icon for the city, also the result of a competition.
Architects, like all artists, are conversant with tradition. The winning entry will surely bring elements of Canada’s design history into the finished work, as well as using Canadian materials.
The neo-Chateau idea is interesting, but let’s see what the competition brings.
I think you meant uninformed? Also, building houses of all kinds, including 24 Sussex, good and fast means that somehow cheap will go out the window. Maybe 24 Sussex will have to be good, cheap and super slow?
"Canadians may not agree on what needs building in our country right now, but getting 24 Sussex fixed would be a good start, a down payment on the rest of what must be done."
Why though? We spent the majority of Canadian history without the Prime Minister living at 24 Sussex. As you correctly note it "does not have significant heritage value. It is not a significant work of Canadian architecture, and its historical connotations apply only to its street address."
Turn it into affordable housing and keep the Prime Minister at Rideau Cottage. There's nice symbolism there in the Prime Minister being a humble servant, not someone with a White House North.
I like the idea of a design competition, but NONE of the architects that were cited here fill me with any hope; almost every. single. one. of their designs, with the exception of Massey Hall, is garbage, soulless modernist architecture. My biggest fear is that's what we'll get. It's exactly what happened when the Chateau Laurier tried to build an expansion, it was ugly as shit. It looked like a soulless box grafted onto an architectural masterpiece, then we were all gaslighted when we were told "it incorporates historic elements" by including strips of copper. We don't want modernist bullshit, we WANT an appropriate piece of architecture that matches our history.
Yes. I want a house that's a neo-gothic reproduction and matches parliament. Yes. I want I Victorian style building that would be at home sitting next to the Chateau Laurier. Yes. I want a Gothic-Revival style that would match the churches of Quebec. Yes i want a railway hotel inspired house that would match the Hotels of Banff, Jasper, and Waterlakes National Park. Yes I want a replica Scottish-Baronial style home that would be right at home with the Museum of Nature. I was Canada's house to reflect our ACTUAL architectural tradition.
NO, I do NOT want a Modernist glass façade of straight flat lines like the Chateau Laurier did. No, I do NOT want the simplistic modernist bullshit they're building directly across the street from Parliament as part Block 2 renovations. The IMMENSE public backlash against the Chateau Laurier design shows that Canadians agree. Poll, after poll, support that average people love designs that feature artisanry, not glass faces and straight lines.
Architects seem allergic to honouring the past. And this panel, gives me little hope that we'll see something other than a soulless abomination that at best speaks lip-service to our rich architectural past, and doesn't really represent Canadians at all.
What makes you think that you, presumably a regular person, should be challenging credentialed architectural experts?
(I agree with you completely, but this is THE question which needs to be answered.)
Of course, a soulless box loved by the expert class, hated by regular Canadians, and completely out of touch with our traditions, might represent the reality of current Canada better than anything else possibly could.
Hahaha you might be right on that one 😂
Since I am in Alberta and I have never seen a red maple leaf, looking at 24 Sussex, I can at least see a nexus with those grand CP Hotels in Alberta, and their wonderful architecture, and 24 Sussex. Fix the exterior it and do what you want in the inside. I have had enough with the erusure of Canadian culture and history.
Odd the author neglected to mention the last design competition and jury decision the feds undertook for the National Monument to Canada's Mission in Afghanistan. At the end of the competition the Liberals overruled the jury and went with the more politically correct choice. Taxpayer ended up paying for both designs.
Excellent, well-written rebuttal. However, the last sentence says it all. Can the Canadian government build a single house? Not on budget, not on time, not what’s required, not worthy of pride. That’s my guess.
I like the idea of the competition and Peter articulates why it's a good idea better then I could!
I've got 2 concerns with this process:
1) What architects love and cherish in a design doesn't necessarily correlate with what the public will love and cherish in a design. I'm more conversant with the world of classical music than architecture, but there's a lot of classical musicians who gravitate towards "difficult", "challenging" works while eschewing "popular" classical compositions as boring and overplayed. The problem? Those "popular" classics are popular because they're incredible works enjoyed by almost everybody. Music is a business; architecture is a business. At the end of the day, are we going to get something that appeals to the public, or are we going to get something that an architect has designed to appeal to other architects and win a juried competition?
2) Selecting a design in a juried competition is just the starting point. It's still going to have to navigate the process of translating that into something buildable, compatible with the budget, and incorporating all of the various requirements and requests that stakeholders are going to try to inject. Is that clever, beautiful design selected by the jury something that's actually going to successfully run that gauntlet, or is it going to be compromised and emerge as something far worse than a less ambitious design at the outset?
The problem is "Canadians of exceptional talent and judgment". Covid showed that all of our institutions for identifying such people, also known as "experts", are worthless, even for relatively simple and objective fields like public health. A field like architecture, which naturally includes far more subjectivity, is completely hopeless.
While I agree with the author that a design competition is valuable and appropriate I do worry that the collective "hive mind" of the panel may lead to an unnecessarily "weird rather than wonderful" result.
A decision that will leave us lesser, intellectually deficient beings of no importance, scratching our heads as to why we're paying for yet another architectural wet dream?
I don't recall Jen and Matt making the argument that 24 Sussex should be kept but that the Prime Minister's residence should look similar to the Fairmont hotels, etc. The suggestion is spot-on because those buildings are recognizable in style across the country where they are seen by the citizenry on a regular basis.
If I interpret Mr. Sealy correctly he believes that competitions are an answer to bureaucratic inertia presumably thinking government will just do what is easy. However, he seems to have cherry-picked the Vietnam War Memorial and the Sydney Opera House as proof that these selection processes get it right. I am sure there are multiple examples where they get it terribly wrong.
Further, his other examples of the Integral House or the fire station may be interesting and forward looking to an architect and the commissioning individuals, but I bet they leave the general public cold. By comparison I'd rather have something that would look at home in Angkor Wat, than these examples.
Ultimately, does it resonate with the general public? Does it reflect history? A national symbol built by hewers of wood, drawers of water, and quarriers of stone is the underpinnings of what this country is.
Architectural one-offs, are often at best curiosities and suggest an aesthetics, and by implication norms, that are recognized and accepted by the very few.
The gulf between whatever is being called "architectural value" here and what ordinary Canadians recognize as historically and nationally significant is exactly why there shouldn't have been a competition. It's not all about showing off expertise. (Love the swipe that regular people are too uniformed to know what the building looks like, too.)
I too noted “the swipe”! While I live in North Vancouver I have a pretty good idea of the appearance of 24 Sussex. I do believe the process being removed from government is essential, however do not necessarily see the necessity of creating an architectural masterpiece. Our editors have a decided tendency to want everything done yesterday and my view is it is important to have it done right, creating a comfortable, livable residence for our Prime Minister.
The alternative to a design competition is design by committee. That has given us a lot of bland public buildings, many in the brutalist style so disliked by the commentators.
We can build beautiful things, like the examples cited. I would add Calgary’s main newest public library to the list, a spectacular building. And Toronto’s City Hall, a continuing icon for the city, also the result of a competition.
Architects, like all artists, are conversant with tradition. The winning entry will surely bring elements of Canada’s design history into the finished work, as well as using Canadian materials.
The neo-Chateau idea is interesting, but let’s see what the competition brings.
It’s been an embarrassment for so long now why not just demolish it and put up some modular housing in its place and make sure the PM lives in it.
That's what I was thinking. Just pick one out of the Beaver Homes & Cottages catalogue. Nothing could be more Canadian!
Unfortunately any juried competition decision will be overridden by government sclerosis in the end anyway and we’re back where we started.
I think you meant uninformed? Also, building houses of all kinds, including 24 Sussex, good and fast means that somehow cheap will go out the window. Maybe 24 Sussex will have to be good, cheap and super slow?
"Canadians may not agree on what needs building in our country right now, but getting 24 Sussex fixed would be a good start, a down payment on the rest of what must be done."
Why though? We spent the majority of Canadian history without the Prime Minister living at 24 Sussex. As you correctly note it "does not have significant heritage value. It is not a significant work of Canadian architecture, and its historical connotations apply only to its street address."
Turn it into affordable housing and keep the Prime Minister at Rideau Cottage. There's nice symbolism there in the Prime Minister being a humble servant, not someone with a White House North.
Will add that the competitive process gives individuals a say , increasing public engagement that can counteract cynicism.
Wasn’t our maple leaf flag also the result of open competition?