24 Sussex Drive [Prime Minister's residence] | Vacant

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Definitely another case of ‘Demolition by Neglect’ by a government. I wonder how many of the bureaucrats that were in charge of these residences allowed their own homes to fall into such disrepair.

Bureaucrats don’t have politicians blocking them from renovating their own homes.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Amazing that with all the billions being tossed around in infrastructure spending, they can't come up with a relative pittance to keep those buildings even somewhat up to date.

Well this is a "prestige" benefit to our politicians. I think especially egregious is how much we are spending making parliament absolutely perfect.

At this point let it collapse I guess. Maybe after an election with a final mandate a tough decision can be made to renovate for the next occupant. I doubt people will be up in arms. Personally I'd prefer it be built from scratch. Use materials from across the country. Zero carbon and all that.

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Bureaucrats don’t have politicians blocking them from renovating their own homes.

This.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well this is a "prestige" benefit to our politicians. I think especially egregious is how much we are spending making parliament absolutely perfect.

I am not sure the difference in cost between “absolutely perfect” and “viable” is that much. I suspect the biggest costs are for the structural work, utilities and seismic upgrades.

Parliament at least serves a public function, 24 Sussex does not (or hasn’t in decades if it ever did).

[Djeffery]

Things like this just drive me crazy. Maybe I'm out of touch, but do Canadians really begrudge our Prime Minister living in a decent house? It's not a palace for chrissakes. Is there ever going to be a time where the country is in a financial position that a politician can ever say "Yes, let's blow a wad of cash on my residence now"? No, there will never be a good time, so someone needs to bite the bullet. I know it will be made political hay of, especially by the wannabe parties that will never have a chance to occupy it. But someone has to stand up at some point and say "We are part of the G7, and as one of the world's leading countries, our Prime Minister is going to not live in a guest house in someone else's backyard", whomever that PM is.

This reminds me of Chretien and the damn airplane. Wanted to appear to be "just folks", so god forbid he flies on a plane with a basic bedroom and shower.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Things like this just drive me crazy. Maybe I'm out of touch, but do Canadians really begrudge our Prime Minister living in a decent house? It's not a palace for chrissakes. Is there ever going to be a time where the country is in a financial position that a politician can ever say "Yes, let's blow a wad of cash on my residence now"? No, there will never be a good time, so someone needs to bite the bullet. I know it will be made political hay of, especially by the wannabe parties that will never have a chance to occupy it. But someone has to stand up at some point and say "We are part of the G7, and as one of the world's leading countries, our Prime Minister is going to not live in a guest house in someone else's backyard", whomever that PM is.

I don't understand the hold-up. Trudeau decided to not move in from the get-go and so he washed his hands of it. Had they started the renos in 2016-17, or if they started at any point over the next 2 years, he would likely never move in anyway.

I liked the idea of having Holmes, or Balmer or a mix of the HGTV Canadian gang renovating the building. It would be open and transparent as well as help finance part of the renos. Just don't show anything that might cause some security concerns.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

This reminds me of Chretien and the damn airplane. Wanted to appear to be "just folks", so god forbid he flies on a plane with a basic bedroom and shower.

Considering the major cuts in the Chretien days, that might have been a good move.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

NO

Do NOT demolish 24 Sussex, ever. That should be considered sacrilegious. Restore it, fix it, and make it look like it was pre-1949 (when they uglified it in the name of bullshit modernity).
Return the proper architectural ornamentation to this mansion. Treat it with the dignity and respect it deserves. Have some sense of historical continuity. NO to a new building.

Nothing else is appropriate.

I would argue that demolition and reconstruction *is* treating it with the dignity and respect it deserves.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Things like this just drive me crazy. Maybe I'm out of touch, but do Canadians really begrudge our Prime Minister living in a decent house? It's not a palace for chrissakes. Is there ever going to be a time where the country is in a financial position that a politician can ever say "Yes, let's blow a wad of cash on my residence now"? No, there will never be a good time, so someone needs to bite the bullet. I know it will be made political hay of, especially by the wannabe parties that will never have a chance to occupy it. But someone has to stand up at some point and say "We are part of the G7, and as one of the world's leading countries, our Prime Minister is going to not live in a guest house in someone else's backyard", whomever that PM is.

This reminds me of Chretien and the damn airplane. Wanted to appear to be "just folks", so god forbid he flies on a plane with a basic bedroom and shower.

Don’t think anyone would begrudge the PM a nice home. The problem is people have a good sense of what a nice home costs, and it isn’t tens of millions (or more).

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I would argue that demolition and reconstruction *is* treating it with the dignity and respect it deserves.

Considering the quantity of re-building required, at some point in the project, the 'mansion' will consist of maybe two exterior walls, *some* of the interior stud framing, and perhaps the roof truss and sheathing but not roofing. The rest is a complete replacement.

Historic or not, it's so far gone that it's almost a complete reconstruction. And if the reconstruction doesn't adhere 100% to 80 year old photographs, in order to better the functioning of the place, or *gasp* reduce cost, I'm ok with that.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Don’t think anyone would begrudge the PM a nice home. The problem is people have a good sense of what a nice home costs, and it isn’t tens of millions (or more).

Most folks also don't need the highest levels of security built-in to their house, I imagine this would be a significant portion of the cost.

I'd vote to rebuild it at this point, and it's a perfect chance for politicians to put their money where their mouth is and build a zero-emission building, maybe power it with a solar roof, etc.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by silvergate

Most folks also don't need the highest levels of security built-in to their house, I imagine this would be a significant portion of the cost.

Maybe, but I am not sure how much physical security the actual house has. The strategy seems to be to focus on the perimeter.

I suspect the cost is trying to bring a Victorian building up to modern standards while replacing utilities, removing asbestos, sorting out the 1950s renovations, seismic upgrades, etc.

Here is proposed renovations from 2008.

[Richard Eade]

The epitome of a well laid-out, functional, house. Nothing like having to go half-way out the front door; then through the Cloakroom; just so that a man can relieve himself. Or, enter through the side entrance, and clomp your muddy boots through either the Formal Den or the Formal Living room.

This house was not purpose built to house a Prime Minister of the country, and it has been ‘kluged’ over the years to minimally perform the tasks needed from it. The 2008 description, above, of work needed is only part of what in NOW needed, and the cost has jumped to $35M to $50M (and I suspect that it will not stop there, once things actually do get started).

Like the Alexandra Bridge, there comes a time what it is no longer reasonable to spend huge amounts of money to, essentially, replace the entire thing one piece at a time – and still wind up with something who’s fundamental, century-old, design doesn’t provide all of the functionality desired.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I would argue that demolition and reconstruction *is* treating it with the dignity and respect it deserves.

I think it's unnecessarily erasing history for lazy reasons. An old building can be fixed, refurbished, brought up to date with all it needs for today (wiring, high-speed internet, security, heating and cooling, etc.) while the historic envelope is retained for the sense of timelessness that national monuments should have.

Unless the proposal is to rebuild in the exact same architectural style as the original from the 19th century, I am against demolishing. This is and must remain a 19th century residence. Updated yes, repaired yes, made livable for the 21st century yes. But true to its origins and restored to its architectural glory, without the ideological diktats of the fascistic 1950's and their irrational attacks against architectural ornamentation.

I don't think what I'm saying is controversial in this day and age anymore... please reassure me!

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

I think it's unnecessarily erasing history for lazy reasons. An old building can be fixed, refurbished, brought up to date with all it needs for today (wiring, high-speed internet, security, heating and cooling, etc.) while the historic envelope is retained for the sense of timelessness that national monuments should have.

Unless the proposal is to rebuild in the exact same architectural style as the original from the 19th century, I am against demolishing. This is and must remain a 19th century residence. Updated yes, repaired yes, made livable for the 21st century yes. But true to its origins and restored to its architectural glory, without the ideological diktats of the fascistic 1950's and their irrational attacks against architectural ornamentation.

I don't think what I'm saying is controversial in this day and age anymore... please reassure me!

Its origins are that of a rich lumber baron/colonizer. I'm not interested in investing tens of millions to "preserve" this particular history. A contemporary residence can be built that better reflects where should be as a country in 2021.

This building is by no means spectacular architecturally or historically in my opinion. It's been an official residence for 60 years. That's less time than my parents have been alive. I would even argue it's fairly mundane architecturally. I know that probably won't go over well for some but I think we can/should do better.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

I think it's unnecessarily erasing history for lazy reasons. An old building can be fixed, refurbished, brought up to date with all it needs for today (wiring, high-speed internet, security, heating and cooling, etc.) while the historic envelope is retained for the sense of timelessness that national monuments should have.

Unless the proposal is to rebuild in the exact same architectural style as the original from the 19th century, I am against demolishing. This is and must remain a 19th century residence. Updated yes, repaired yes, made livable for the 21st century yes. But true to its origins and restored to its architectural glory, without the ideological diktats of the fascistic 1950's and their irrational attacks against architectural ornamentation.

I don't think what I'm saying is controversial in this day and age anymore... please reassure me!

The "home" only became the official residence of the Prime minister in 1951 or 70 years ago. Secondly the thing has been renovated so much that its a "ship of Theseus" question to whats actually original, and much of the new is just a replication of the original house. Geo has photos from 1928 showing just how much smaller the historical house built in 1866 is.

So I don't know what "history" you think is being preserved, and as other have rightfully pointed out any attempt to "preserve" the building would be nothing but a facade as the interior needs to be gutted.

So with that in mind tear it down and build new to modern standards & modern requirements, and do so for less far less then the cost to just maintain the horrible status quo.

[Djeffery]

Is there any truth to a thing I saw on Facebook that a second home was built at Harrington Lake? The article was one of those right wing Trudeau bashing rag type of articles alleging Sophie and Justin have split up and a second residence was built there. Aside from the tabloid part of that article, is the house thing true? Would seem weird to spend major money at Harrington Lake while 24 Sussex sits empty.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Is there any truth to a thing I saw on Facebook that a second home was built at Harrington Lake? The article was one of those right wing Trudeau bashing rag type of articles alleging Sophie and Justin have split up and a second residence was built there. Aside from the tabloid part of that article, is the house thing true? Would seem weird to spend major money at Harrington Lake while 24 Sussex sits empty.

An existing home on the property was relocated, rebuilt and expanded
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics...-for-reconstruction-of-guest-cottage-at/

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Is there any truth to a thing I saw on Facebook that a second home was built at Harrington Lake? The article was one of those right wing Trudeau bashing rag type of articles alleging Sophie and Justin have split up and a second residence was built there. Aside from the tabloid part of that article, is the house thing true? Would seem weird to spend major money at Harrington Lake while 24 Sussex sits empty.

The PM’s summer residence is at Harrington Lake and renovations were done last year. In addition to the main house, there are a couple of guest cottages and a farmhouse that was moved/renovated as part of the project. Whether that has anything to do with the Trudeaus’ living arrangements, I’ve no idea. The Conservatives tried to make an issue of it but didn’t get much traction.

[J.OT13]

Title says proposed. Is it really? Not too sure that's accurate...

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Title says proposed. Is it really? Not too sure that's accurate...

Should say “abandoned”