Parliamentary Precinct
 

Nine cities to bid for proposed Portrait Gallery of Canada

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - The federal government is holding a competition among nine cities for the right to host the controversial Portrait Gallery of Canada.

The Conservative government has launched a request for proposals from Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver.

Heritage Minister Josee Verner says all the cities have large populations that could provide a local visitor base for the gallery.

The gallery's collection of portraits is currently housed out of public view in an Ottawa-area building operated by the national archives.

Public Works Minister Michael Fortier says the government wants to ensure maximum tax-dollar benefits by including the private sector in developing the new gallery.

The Liberal government of Jean Chretien first announced in January 2001 that the gallery would be located in the former U.S. embassy across the street from Parliament.

But controversy quickly ensued, centred primarily on costs, which ballooned to $44.6 million by last year from an original construction budget of $22 million.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper put the project on hold shortly after his Tories won a minority government in January 2006.

Personally, I hate the old US Embassy building. Architectuarally, its greek imperial style does not blend well with the Neo-Gothic Parliament buildings and the Second Empire Langevin block, and the scale is just wrong. I secretly wish that they would demolish or move this building.

In its place (and all the buildings up to O'Connor), I'd like to see a brand new contemporary building the same scale as the Langevin block to complete the Parliamentary quadrangle.

In London UK, they recently finished Portcullis House right across from Big Ben. While not the prettiest bulding, scale-wise it is right in context and it communicates between the old and contemporary styles in the British capital. Underneath the bulding is an interchange station for the Tube, and there are some ground floor services.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...bigben.arp.jpgFrom Wikipedia

http://www.andreweland.org/2002/1/1/...cullis-house-3 From Andrewelland.org

It's unfortunate that today, we still have a parliamentary precinct that is incomplete. One of the most striking areas, right in front of our majestic parliament buildings, features an Info Centre that is completely out of context with its historical surroundings, gaping holes on either side of the former US embassy and 2 buildings that sit vacant ie. the fomer bank and the embassy. Worse, any plans to improve this our shady at best.

Hardly worthy of a G-8 nation parlimentary precinct.

Ottawa as a G8 Capital fails... :(

The Greek imperial style for that building is perfectly suitable given its long-standing use as the American embassy. Washington, DC's architecture in the 19th Century (and still today) drew heavily from Greek architecture as a symbolic link between the earliest republic and what was (in 1776) the new republic (back then maybe San Marino was the only other one in the western world).

So, that building has a story to tell, and it's an American story. We, as a capital city, have embassies, the US embassy being one of the most prominent. Its location across from Parliament speaks to that too. I personally like the style but, even if I didn't, I'd want to understand why that building looks like that. Demolishing or removing this building for its style would rob the city of part of its history, symbolism and heritage, not just locally but nationally.

This actually goes to the heart of another question - why deprive ourselves of a particular style of architecture, just because "it is old"? The Parliament buildings aer Gothic revival - isn't that a fake, a pastiche of a Medieval style? Yes, but I'll take it anyway. The style was chosen for symbolic reasons that tie us to a deeper cultural past.

i kind of like this former U.S embassy.we have to keep it.but this info thing....ouf!

Nice little article in the Citizen about the detriment of moving the Portrait Gallery of Canada...

Portrait Gallery move to cost $2.5M/year
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...e-a32f05da62d3

I think they could make the grass lawn in the fron to the hill into a garden!
Or they could build CN tower mark II.

$2.5 million doesn't seem like much when you look at the total cost..

It's more that what I get shovling driveways...

But I don't pay taxes!

2.5 million dollars annually adds up quickly after a few years... this statistic is great news towards keeping this thing in Ottawa. It would be nice if this news made the national newspapers, but unfortunately the only story about the gallery today in the globe is that Calgary is putting 500K$ into a bid. With Larry contemplating relocation to Panama I am worried that we won't put anything together. Something tells me that the Feds have already promised it to Calgary anyways and this whole bidding process is just a whitewash...

I also agree that as attractive as the old American embassy building is, it is in the wrong place in terms of height, style, and square footage of the lot on which it sits. Taking this building and the little bank building next door and relocating them somewhere in the downtown core would free up a prime lot to build a really classy new building for the precinct. I like Kitchissippi's example of what they did in London. How about a neo-neo-gothic building of the same proportion as the Langevin block next door? It would start up one of those 'architectural conversations' everybody talked about when the National Gallery was built with the atrium loosely modelled on the Library of Parliament...

In the Bow plans, there is the gallery...
We have enough museums anyway...

And like Peter Hume said, one, two, and more museums will risk on leaving Ottawa and it's even worst if it goes to Calgary. No it must stay in Ottawa. It says National Portrait Gallery - makes more sense to have it here in Ottawa rather in the heart of oil land.

To save the portraits from oil stains...

So we get to see Ottawa's pitch for the portrait gallery on Tuesday, and then we find out in May where it will end up. Anybody else feel we are fighting a losing battle on this one?

The $2.5M figure sounds like it was pulled out of a hat.

At any rate, the speculation is that none of this matters since the plan was to put it in Calgary all along, with the bid process simply being a pretext.

I don't think it's quite so straightforward. The Tory government can also use this whole exercise to "teach Ottawa a lesson about being entrepreneurial". There is a wide-ranging consensus across Canada that an institution like this should be in the Nation's capital. If the City of Ottawa makes a strong pitch, totally outside of the NCC, then it demonstrates to the nation (1) that we take our role as national capital very seriously, (2) that we don't need a federal nanny agency to produce an appropriately symbolic city for the nation, and (3) that we know how to put together complex multi-use projects that will also fulfill other urban objectives. The Feds and the city can win, win, win with a good Ottawa bid.

The dangerous game the Tories would be playing by giving this to Calgary is that they would make other major cities unnecessarily unhappy, since the nation's capital is the uncontroversial location for national institutions. Calgary wins, then Toronto, Vancouver and Edmonton (especially those three) will be very pissed off and/or lining up for "the next one" which may or may not ever come their way and would drain more money from federal coffers than necessary.

Plus, if the Tories want to build a base in Toronto and Vancouver, getting those cities to work themselves up into a costly and losing bid, and seeing the results be so evidently political (the PM's home city getting the goodies) would not be the best way to achieve support for the next election. Edmonton, as Calgary's Lex Luther, could be tempted to chink a dent into the Tory armour by re-electing an Anne McLellan, for instance...

imho I don't think voters will change their vote based on a portrait gallery...who cares where it goes....it's not like it's the sci and tech museum.

some links to news stories about the National Portrait Gallery

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2008/01...7.html?ref=rss


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...Story/National

http://www.canada.com/cityguides/mon...631cc0&k=68436

I find it disturbing that we are creating a bidding war for a national museum using scarce municipal tax money. It is going cost each city money to make a bid and now Ottawa's bid may include waiving development charges. In other words, a federal project may be subsidized with municipal property taxes. Calgary's bid alone is going to cost $0.5 million. Imagine, if each other city did the same. It seems like the Conservatives are going through this process because they do not have the politcal guts to simply award the museum to Calgary as it appears to be their wish.

I agree it's not an election-winning issue, but it will be a good bellwether for whether the Conservatives have a real national vision or if they are just a bunch of porkbarrellers trying to bring as much booty as they can back to their constituencies. There really is no argument to put this thing in Calgary whatsoever.

We shall see, eh?

The problem is we are creating a precedent. Once we establish bidding for national cultural institutions as federal policy, it is inevitable that the same will apply to the Science and Technology Museum, when it is finally decided to proceed with relocation.

I saw on the news this weekend that Metcalfe and Slater was a proposed site for the Portrait Gallery...

:previous:
Hmm... interesting.

Should it be located outside the National Capital Region, might I suggest it be re-named the Stephen Harper Memorial Pork Gallery?

Any news from anybody here on Ottawa's pitch for this thing?

^

Yeah I read that article and I was wondering if anybody had a scoop on the five rumoured bids... Maybe at the base of Charlesfort's proposal at bank and sunnyside?

PS. the headline of that article is just all too fitting. Auctioning off Canadian heritage for 'maximum value' and forcing municipalities to cough up for national projects. Combined with the fact that this is all just a big whitewash for some Alberta-style porkbarrelling. I'm beginning to miss Jean...

Jean Chretien was the man! Nothing EVER stuck to that guy.

From now on I'm voting Liberal. They're all corrupt, but the libs do it in style...

:omg: :lmao:

Looks like Charlesfort is one of them, but on Lisgar Street facing City Hall, not at Sunnyside. There is Claridge with that big parking lot next to Place Bell (a spectacular site). There is Brookfield with the Place de Ville IV site. The other ones I don't know.

I am liking the sound of the Charlesfort bid already. How do you get the inside scoop on this stuff? Any renderings, by chance?

I think Mille Sabords works at City Hall...or maybe he goes on vacation with Randall Denlay

Right, because only people who live in Ottawa are enititled to easy access to the nation's cultural treasures. God forbid that Ottawa would have to share with the rest of the country.

It's not about people in Ottawa having access to these museums. Ottawa is a tourist destination for people who want to learn about Canadian history, culture, and government. It's great to have all the museums in a single city so that people can travel here and learn about their country. I have no problem with other cities having cultural institutions, but national museums belong in the nation's capital. If I want to see oil execs in pink coyboy hats, topless female hockey fans, and a bunch of lilacs I'll go to Calgary. If I want to see a national museum or gallery, I'll come to Ottawa. Agree? Doubt it.

How did you know that I vacation with Citizen columnists? :haha:

I, for one, look forward to visiting Canada's EnCana National Portrait Gallery.

Nothing says class like slagging another city based on your impressions garnered from a photo thread last summer.

Dear Scott,
Welcome to our Ottawa thread. Federally funded cultural institutions, as I am sure you are aware, are spread out across the country. For the most part, they are where they are for some connection to that place - the Museum of Anthropology in BC houses that province's collection of Haida works, the Canadian Canoe Museum in Peterborough is where canoes have been manufactured for over a century, and the new Mountie museum in Saskatchewan is where the mounties are headquartered. Sometimes cities such as Winnipeg put together a pitch for a museum like the Human Rights museum and the feds pay for it. The Portrait Gallery was slated for Ottawa, the capital of Canada where people have slugged out the future of the country for almost 150 years. $11 million was spent on a location, and then Harper tried to move it out to Calgary so it could be on the ground floor of an oil company's headquarters. Moving these portraits to Calgary will cost an extra $2 million in maintenance fees of the portraits which are owned by Archives Canada. Then he realizes the whole EnCana plan won't go over so well with the press so he creates a 'tax-saving scheme' of some kind which basically downshifts federal cultural spending to cities and denies the extra expense of displaying these paintings outside Ottawa. The opinion of people in Ottawa is not that we are entitled to all of Canada's cultural treasures, it is that this particular project was supposed to happen in our city and now we are rightly disappointed that it is likely being porkbarrelled away to Calgary. How anybody from Calgary can suggest this is anything more is laughable, and even more laughable is that Albertans used to be most vocal when Quebec politicians did this in their own ridings and now that Alberta has its big day in the sun look what they go and do. If you guys want a federal cultural institution go and cook one up yourselves like Winnipeg did. I don't know, museum of the CPR or something. But honestly, this belongs in Ottawa and it's pretty undisputable.