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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
I like the idea of the competition and Peter articulates why it's a good idea better then I could!
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.
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 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.
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 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?
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?
Unfortunately any juried competition decision will be overridden by government sclerosis in the end anyway and we’re back where we started.
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.