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

[roger1818]

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!

My suggestion is that you read the history of 24 Sussex Drive to understand the history of the house you are fighting to save. This isn't an attempt to erase history, but more that the current building doesn't hold any historical significance to be worth saving.

We can't save every old building just because it is old, especially if there is nothing left of the original building. It is like the philosophical question: if a ship has all of its components are replaced, is it still the same ship?

[rocketphish]

24 Sussex Drive is a trash palace. We should tear it down

Sabrina Maddeaux, National Post
Publishing date: Aug 17, 2021 • 2 days ago • 2 minute read

Vacant homes are a hot topic lately, but Canada’s most expensive vacant property may very well be our prime minister’s official residence, 24 Sussex Drive. Justin Trudeau doesn’t step foot in the place, let alone live there, and who can blame him? It’s literally falling apart. There’s asbestos in the walls, faulty electrical wiring, cracks everywhere, clogged pipes and, knowing Canada, at least a few trash pandas hanging around.

Worst of all: taxpayers are shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for supposed “upkeep” of a house that makes the Haunted Mansion look like the Four Seasons. The cost to make it safe to inhabit? At least another $10 million. To bring it up to something resembling good condition? $36 million. And that’s probably a low estimate.

To put things in perspective, the most expensive mansion ever sold in Vancouver — the hottest real estate market in North America — clocked in at $42 million this July. The previous record was $31 million.

Our prime minister could literally live like a tycoon for the amount of money it’d take to make 24 Sussex merely un-embarrassing.

So enough is enough. It’s time to tear 24 Sussex down and start from scratch. While this will surely horrify some historians, the fact is 24 Sussex isn’t very historic at all. Unlike 10 Downing Street or the White House, practically no official business takes place there, so its practical and symbolic use is minimal. The most historic thing to ever happen on the grounds was an assassination attempt in 1995, and that’s not exactly a compelling reason to keep it.

Let’s be honest: most Canadians couldn’t even tell you what 24 Sussex looks like without a Google image search. This is not an iconic structure we’re talking about. This is a building begging to be put out of its misery, so let’s just do it. We’ll save taxpayers a ton of money and maybe even build something world-class in the process.

And for those still concerned about the cost: the longer we delay the inevitable, the more expensive it’s going to get. Had we taken care of this 10 years ago, the bill would’ve been millions less.

Or, let’s work with what we already have. The prime minister seems perfectly happy living at Rideau Cottage — a few tweaks could easily turn the place into a befitting official residence and, thanks to Trudeau’s pandemic press conferences, most Canadians at least know what the front door looks like.

This shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but one of national pride and common sense. Our prime minister deserves a reasonably nice place to live and host foreign dignitaries. Taxpayers deserve bang for their buck, not the country’s most expensive eyesore. Let’s get it done.

National Post

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/sabrin...wcm/608a0ff9-0d1e-4967-9e54-dbdc413a24dd

[Harley613]

Amen to all that.

Put it out of it's misery.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by roger1818

My suggestion is that you read the history of 24 Sussex Drive to understand the history of the house you are fighting to save. This isn't an attempt to erase history, but more that the current building doesn't hold any historical significance to be worth saving.

We can't save every old building just because it is old, especially if there is nothing left of the original building. It is like the philosophical question: if a ship has all of its components are replaced, is it still the same ship?

Blind stupidity. Save the fucking place and restore it to its real origins. I don't know where this idiotic appetite for destruction of nice old things comes from but it's a fucking cancer. Lose it. There is no modern way to replace the irreplaceable - history, tradition, beauty, and a sense of continuity. This infantile desire to start over all the time robs us of a common narrative. It has to stop.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Blind stupidity. Save the fucking place and restore it to its real origins. I don't know where this idiotic appetite for destruction of nice old things comes from but it's a fucking cancer. Lose it. There is no modern way to replace the irreplaceable - history, tradition, beauty, and a sense of continuity. This infantile desire to start over all the time robs us of a common narrative. It has to stop.

'Irreplaceable, history, tradition, beauty, continuity'.... which house are we talking about here?!

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Harley613

'Irreplaceable, history, tradition, beauty, continuity'.... which house are we talking about here?!

The original 24 Sussex, before being uglified in the 1940's and 50's. Bring it back to its Victorian glory. Nothing less. Undo the sins of the 20th century and restore it to its original beauty. Money is no object. That house should be there in 400 years.

[Harley613]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

The original 24 Sussex, before being uglified in the 1940's and 50's. Bring it back to its Victorian glory. Nothing less. Undo the sins of the 20th century and restore it to its original beauty. Money is no object. That house should be there in 400 years.

So you want to spend a literal fortune of public money to modernize the house and shrink the house back to it's original dimensions and appearance...for what purpose? It would be incredibly inadequate for governmental functions in it's original form. There is no historical precedent for a museum, especially after devolving it from the Prime Minister's Residence. It's not a spectacular example of anything, it's an old lumber baron's ostentatious house on a very nice lot on a cliff. If you subtract the fact that it was expropriated as public land in the 1940's and made the PM's home in the 1950's it's a pretty unremarkable building. It was the 'Michael Cowpland House' of the 1860's, built as a wealthy man's gaudy gift to his wife.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

The original 24 Sussex, before being uglified in the 1940's and 50's. Bring it back to its Victorian glory. Nothing less. Undo the sins of the 20th century and restore it to its original beauty. Money is no object. That house should be there in 400 years.

If they really wanted to spend huge money to build a replica Victorian House, it would be better to put it in Upper Canada Village or something so people can see it.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Harley613

So you want to spend a literal fortune of public money to modernize the house and shrink the house back to it's original dimensions and appearance...for what purpose? It would be incredibly inadequate for governmental functions in it's original form. There is no historical precedent for a museum, especially after devolving it from the Prime Minister's Residence. It's not a spectacular example of anything, it's an old lumber baron's ostentatious house on a very nice lot on a cliff. If you subtract the fact that it was expropriated as public land in the 1940's and made the PM's home in the 1950's it's a pretty unremarkable building. It was the 'Michael Cowpland House' of the 1860's, built as a wealthy man's gaudy gift to his wife.

Yes, I do. I want my tax dollars to be spent on bringing the building up to date in its interior and in its various systems (hearing, cooling, plumbing, electrical, security, telecomms) and on restoring the house to its original Victorian look. And if it needs to be enlarged, I want my tax money to be spent on an addition in pure Victorian style that matches the original building so that everyone will think it was always there.

It should not matter how the house was built or for whom. It is our Prime Minister's residence. The fact that it was a lumber baron's house just links it to Ottawa's industrial past. That is nothing to hide, and even less to obliterate. It was made unremarkable in the 1940's and 50's through the Modernist uglification that was imposed on it, and that mistake has to be undone.

Come on guys, where is the sense of history and pride in our roots here? I am baffled that what I'm saying seems to be the odd-man-out opinion here.

The government would spend a fortune on a prime ministerial residence anyway. It should be a public debate as to whether it has to be a Modernist building. I vigorously say it should not. There is nothing wrong with keeping the building and returning it to its original glory - as the feds did very successfully with the Met Life building on Wellington, complete with wrought iron canopy.

[Harley613]

I guess I just don't think it had 'original glory'. Many many experts have agreed with that sentiment. It has a very nice setting but the building itself, in it's current or original form, is not particularly significant aside from the fact that it's old and largish. It has always been run down since they made it the PM's house so it's really a bad memory for the nation. It was a poor decision to adapt that house to governmental use considering it's disrepair since day one.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Yes, I do. I want my tax dollars to be spent on bringing the building up to date in its interior and in its various systems (hearing, cooling, plumbing, electrical, security, telecomms) and on restoring the house to its original Victorian look. And if it needs to be enlarged, I want my tax money to be spent on an addition in pure Victorian style that matches the original building so that everyone will think it was always there.

It should not matter how the house was built or for whom. It is our Prime Minister's residence. The fact that it was a lumber baron's house just links it to Ottawa's industrial past. That is nothing to hide, and even less to obliterate. It was made unremarkable in the 1940's and 50's through the Modernist uglification that was imposed on it, and that mistake has to be undone.

Come on guys, where is the sense of history and pride in our roots here? I am baffled that what I'm saying seems to be the odd-man-out opinion here.

The government would spend a fortune on a prime ministerial residence anyway. It should be a public debate as to whether it has to be a Modernist building. I vigorously say it should not. There is nothing wrong with keeping the building and returning it to its original glory - as the feds did very successfully with the Met Life building on Wellington, complete with wrought iron canopy.

I don't think the Wellington Building is comparable. It is a much newer building, built with essentially modern building techniques and the historical features (such as the mosaic) were largely intact and just needed to be repaired/restored.

24 Sussex has almost no Victorian features intact, so you would basically be building a replica building from the ground up. I don't think is historical preservation, it is Disneyfication.

I just don't see any advantage to having a disnified replica Victorian building as the PM's residence. Not only is it extraordinarily expensive, completely impractical for a PM residence, but it is closed to the public so taxpayers could not even see it.

[acottawa]

This is the OG house. Just on the outside they would have to build a tower, restructure the roof, restructure all of the windows, add all of the decorative elements, build a canopy, etc.

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This is the OG house. Just on the outside they would have to build a tower, restructure the roof, restructure all of the windows, add all of the decorative elements, build a canopy, etc.

Thanks for posting that photo. To me, that is not Disney. That is our architectural heritage. It is beautiful. And it has glory. Just look at it. Restoring the building to what we see in this photo, by returning the Victorian features and ornament, is not "building a replica" - it is repairing a mistake.

If the problem is disrepair, fix it and keep it in good repair. The state of the building in the past is irrelevant. Of course our prime minister deserves a dignified residence, which is kept in top shape. Of course. Nobody argues that.

Between the Wellington building and this one, there may be a few decades' difference in year of original construction, but that also is irrelevant. The Wellington building was restored to its original state based on its year of construction and this one should too.

And as to whether restoring would be cheaper than demolishing and building new, I am not sure we can really say that. At the very least, we would do the math. But building something new by definition starts with nothing, while restoring starts with an already-built structure.

I see no valid argument or reason to demolish a building that has historical significance and can (and should) continue to mark our national and city image. I see no valid reason to build a modern residence from scratch. Actually, I fear that building something modern would be ordinary at best, ugly and embarrassing most likely, and stain the spirit of this residence as an institution.

[jitterbug]

As a lifelong (56-year) Ottawa resident, I am torn as to what to do about 24 Sussex. I understand the trepidation to tear it down and build something new, as the "something new" would likely end up being a political hot potato that no PM would want to deal with. Design would almost certainly become an issue (remember the recent Chateau Laurier addition?), as would size, amenities, and of course cost. On the other hand restoring the existing house would make history buffs happy but probably not taxpayers as this option would almost certainly be more expensive and result in only a slightly better home for the PM.

My vote (reluctantly): Bite the bullet and start with a design competition for a new home that makes the best use of a prized property. Ideally the home would be a traditional design that stands the test of time (not a gray see-through box that is the norm these days), be carbon neutral, incorporate Canadian materials where possible, and become a suitable residence for the PM and his/her family and as a site to host state dinners for visiting dignitaries. Something that is both functional and worthy of national pride.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Thanks for posting that photo. To me, that is not Disney. That is our architectural heritage. It is beautiful. And it has glory. Just look at it. Restoring the building to what we see in this photo, by returning the Victorian features and ornament, is not "building a replica" - it is repairing a mistake.

If the problem is disrepair, fix it and keep it in good repair. The state of the building in the past is irrelevant. Of course our prime minister deserves a dignified residence, which is kept in top shape. Of course. Nobody argues that.

Between the Wellington building and this one, there may be a few decades' difference in year of original construction, but that also is irrelevant. The Wellington building was restored to its original state based on its year of construction and this one should too.

And as to whether restoring would be cheaper than demolishing and building new, I am not sure we can really say that. At the very least, we would do the math. But building something new by definition starts with nothing, while restoring starts with an already-built structure.

I see no valid argument or reason to demolish a building that has historical significance and can (and should) continue to mark our national and city image. I see no valid reason to build a modern residence from scratch. Actually, I fear that building something modern would be ordinary at best, ugly and embarrassing most likely, and stain the spirit of this residence as an institution.

But none of these Victorian features you like exist, and have not existed for 70 years. No PM ever lived in a a house that looked the way you want it. They would for all intents and purposes be building a replica Victorian house (possibly saving some stones) to try to resemble a century old photograph. It would have all the authenticity of a Disney attraction.

Now maybe there is some merit in building a replica Victorian House, something like Guédelon castle, but nobody is suggesting the President.of France should live at Guédelon.

[cpa4s]

they should terminate the role of GG - turn RH into the official residence and sell off 24 Sussex.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by jitterbug

...

My vote (reluctantly): Bite the bullet and start with a design competition for a new home that makes the best use of a prized property. Ideally the home would be a traditional design that stands the test of time (not a gray see-through box that is the norm these days), be carbon neutral, incorporate Canadian materials where possible, and become a suitable residence for the PM and his/her family and as a site to host state dinners for visiting dignitaries. Something that is both functional and worthy of national pride.

State dinners are hosted by the GG, not by the PM. The house should have the capacity to host more modest official/working events. I understand that 24 Sussex is pretty limited in that regard.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

State dinners are hosted by the GG, not by the PM. The house should have the capacity to host more modest official/working events. I understand that 24 Sussex is pretty limited in that regard.

I am not really sure what official or working functions the PM is supposed to host at home. PMs used to host dinners before first ministers meetings there. Summits and other international meetings are rarely hosted in Ottawa (G7 has never been in Ottawa for example). Visits to Ottawa are usually one leader at a time. The cabinet is far too bloated to fit inside a dining room.

[adam-machiavelli]

My suggestion: Make the PM's current home the official residence. Keeps the prime minister humble and grounded, and saves on security costs by locating them on the grounds of Rideau Hall.

Give 24 Sussex over to a foreign government for use as an embassy for $1 on the condition they restore it (and pay the bill) to NCC specifications.

[Djeffery]

Rideau Hall itself not big enough for PM and GG?