- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,183
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
The prime minister’s unremarkable residence has never inspired widespread admiration. In fact, the current debate over its costly future mirrors closely its lukewarm inception as an official residence almost 70 years ago. But, writes Don Butler, most observers say we should keep it.
If you like, you can blame Mackenzie King.
In his farewell speech to MPs in 1948, the retiring prime minister urged Parliament to provide an official residence for his successors. King had lived at Laurier House, which he owned, since 1923, and the cost to him of running and maintaining it had been heavy.
About a year later, on Sept. 30, 1949, C.D. Howe, the minister of trade and commerce, announced that “the Edwards property” would become the permanent home in Ottawa of Canada’s prime ministers.
“Canada is one of the few countries that does not have an official residence for its prime minister,” Howe told MPs. “Most of us realize the difficulty of a prime minister, coming to Ottawa for an uncertain tenure, in obtaining the type of house suitable to the high office he holds.”
The Edwards property, of course, was 24 Sussex Drive. In 1943, the government had served a notice of expropriation on its owner, Gordon Edwards, a former Ottawa MP, saying it wanted to acquire the property to guard against any possible commercialization of the Ottawa River shoreline.
That triggered a three-year legal battle that ended in 1946 with the Exchequer Court of Canada ordering the government to pay Edwards $140,000 for his house. Edwards was allowed to remain there on a monthly basis, but died later that year.
In truth, the government had no idea what to do with the house. Following Edwards’ death, it sat empty for a year, then was leased for two years to the Australian Embassy, which needed temporary office quarters.
By early 1949, however, government officials had identified 24 Sussex as the likely future prime ministerial official residence. After Canada’s leading role in the Second World War, a steady stream of important visitors was descending on Ottawa. Providing an official residence would allow the prime minister to receive them in surroundings more suitable than the Roxborough, the now-demolished apartment building at Elgin Street and Laurier Avenue where King’s successor, Louis St. Laurent, then lived.
There was little political controversy over the decision. Conservative Leader George Drew expressed satisfaction that the prime minister would “have the opportunity of carrying out his official duties and receiving official visitors in a manner more in keeping with Canada’s present position in world affairs.”
CCF Leader M.J. Coldwell said the house at 24 Sussex was “beautifully situated,” but suggested the government might consider building a new house, with modern conveniences, instead of fixing up the old place.
As it happened, the government was seriously considering precisely that. The Ottawa Journal reported in October 1949 that there was “a strong body of opinion” in cabinet that favoured tearing down the existing home. Howe and Lester Pearson, then external affairs minister, were said to be stressing the need for “something special,” given Canada’s post-war prestige on the world stage.
Related
The editorialists at the Journal were “rather horrified” at the reported $750,000 cost of a new residence, however. What a prime minister requires, they opined, is a house that is “cozy, comfortable, reasonably secluded, with spacious rooms for receptions and dinner parties, but designed in the main for living, not for display.”
But what a prime minister would get for $750,000, the newspaper suggested, was a “cold, austere palace, a sort of art gallery with bedrooms attached” that those occupying it would detest.
In the end, the government opted to spend $410,000 to remodel the existing house, transforming its appearance in ways that made it almost unrecognizable. St. Laurent took up residence in 1951, supposedly somewhat reluctantly, insisting on paying rent.
The rest of the story is familiar. Little has been spent on the house since then, and it has gradually decomposed to the point that alarmingly expensive repairs can no longer be avoided.
In some ways, the current discussion about 24 Sussex mirrors the debate in cabinet 66 years ago. Some, including prominent architects and at least one former resident, think it should be razed and replaced by a new building that would showcase Canadian architecture and stir national pride.
Others insist its destruction would constitute almost an act of vandalism, given the house’s connection to 10 prime ministers and Ottawa’s early timber trade. (Lumber baron Joseph Currier built it in 1868 as a wedding gift to his third wife, Hannah Wright.)
Ottawa architect Barry Padolsky, whose firm specializes in heritage conservation projects, thinks 24 Sussex should be treated as a model of conservation. “It would be a poor signal to the rest of the country if the government demolished a building that has been deemed to have historic value in its own capital.”
Historian Charlotte Gray would prefer to keep and repair the current house, as well. But, she adds, “I also know what terrible shape it’s in. If the NCC recommended that it was just too expensive to restore and should be pulled down and a really terrific architect-designed modern house built, I think that would also be acceptable.”
That would likely cost as much as or more than fixing it up, says Toon Dreessen, president of the Ontario Association of Architects. “There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the bones of that house that can’t be preserved and conserved and restored,” he says.
Dreessen says Justin Trudeau should use the renovation project “to demonstrate to the world that Canada cares about its history, about its buildings and about climate change. There is a cultural memory to that house that is more than just the sum of its parts. This house means something.”
Whatever is done, it’s important to do it right, says Dreessen, who fears the government could opt for half-measures to save money. Twenty-four Sussex “is what we say on the world stage about who we are as Canadians,” he says.
“This is our 10 Downing Street. This is our White House. We’d be shocked and dismayed if either one of those properties was radically altered or allowed to decay.”
While some foreign heads of government live in grand mansions or palaces, it’s hard to find anyone who thinks that sort of opulence is appropriate for Canada’s prime minister.
Dining room at 24 Sussex.
Certainly the current residence is far from palatial, says Gray. “Inside, it’s not a particularly beautiful house. When they did the 1950 renovation, they stripped out all the original moulding. The spaces aren’t that big, frankly. They’re also pretty bland.”
The fact that 24 Sussex was extensively modified in 1950 means those charting its course forward are less constrained by heritage preservation concerns, says Susan Ross, an assistant professor at Carleton University’s School of Canadian Studies.
“When a (heritage) building has high integrity,” Ross says, “people tend to be battling a bit for keeping every door knob. But if the integrity isn’t as high, people are usually more open-minded about what the opportunities are.”
According to Ross, 24 Sussex doesn’t have to be a preservation project. “You can have areas where there need to be changes, there need to be removals, there need to be additions.” The goal should be to strike a balance between new elements that express the present era and preserved parts that tell the story over time, she says.
A remodelled 24 Sussex could include modern additions or changes that reflect their own time, says Dreessen, who cites the contemporary glass lantern added to the Canadian Museum of Nature’s century-old building as a prime example of what’s possible.
Many also favour turning the current energy-hog residence into a green model of sustainability – an idea first suggested by the Sierra Club of Canada.
That’s also an argument against demolishing it, says Ross. “In almost every case or rehabilitation, you’re recouping your energy and other environmental costs much quickly than if you demolish and start over.”
One idea attracting little support is transforming 24 Sussex into a working residence, similar to the White House – an option reportedly developed by the NCC.
Padolsky calls that “absolutely horrifying. It would reinforce the power of a presidential prime minister. You might as well get rid of Parliament.”
dbutler@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/ButlerDon
查看原文...
If you like, you can blame Mackenzie King.
In his farewell speech to MPs in 1948, the retiring prime minister urged Parliament to provide an official residence for his successors. King had lived at Laurier House, which he owned, since 1923, and the cost to him of running and maintaining it had been heavy.
About a year later, on Sept. 30, 1949, C.D. Howe, the minister of trade and commerce, announced that “the Edwards property” would become the permanent home in Ottawa of Canada’s prime ministers.
“Canada is one of the few countries that does not have an official residence for its prime minister,” Howe told MPs. “Most of us realize the difficulty of a prime minister, coming to Ottawa for an uncertain tenure, in obtaining the type of house suitable to the high office he holds.”
The Edwards property, of course, was 24 Sussex Drive. In 1943, the government had served a notice of expropriation on its owner, Gordon Edwards, a former Ottawa MP, saying it wanted to acquire the property to guard against any possible commercialization of the Ottawa River shoreline.
That triggered a three-year legal battle that ended in 1946 with the Exchequer Court of Canada ordering the government to pay Edwards $140,000 for his house. Edwards was allowed to remain there on a monthly basis, but died later that year.
In truth, the government had no idea what to do with the house. Following Edwards’ death, it sat empty for a year, then was leased for two years to the Australian Embassy, which needed temporary office quarters.
By early 1949, however, government officials had identified 24 Sussex as the likely future prime ministerial official residence. After Canada’s leading role in the Second World War, a steady stream of important visitors was descending on Ottawa. Providing an official residence would allow the prime minister to receive them in surroundings more suitable than the Roxborough, the now-demolished apartment building at Elgin Street and Laurier Avenue where King’s successor, Louis St. Laurent, then lived.
There was little political controversy over the decision. Conservative Leader George Drew expressed satisfaction that the prime minister would “have the opportunity of carrying out his official duties and receiving official visitors in a manner more in keeping with Canada’s present position in world affairs.”
CCF Leader M.J. Coldwell said the house at 24 Sussex was “beautifully situated,” but suggested the government might consider building a new house, with modern conveniences, instead of fixing up the old place.
As it happened, the government was seriously considering precisely that. The Ottawa Journal reported in October 1949 that there was “a strong body of opinion” in cabinet that favoured tearing down the existing home. Howe and Lester Pearson, then external affairs minister, were said to be stressing the need for “something special,” given Canada’s post-war prestige on the world stage.
Related
- Is there a better way to fix 24 Sussex?
- Before 24 Sussex: Where our prime ministers lived
- See how 24 Sussex compares to the world's official residences
The editorialists at the Journal were “rather horrified” at the reported $750,000 cost of a new residence, however. What a prime minister requires, they opined, is a house that is “cozy, comfortable, reasonably secluded, with spacious rooms for receptions and dinner parties, but designed in the main for living, not for display.”
But what a prime minister would get for $750,000, the newspaper suggested, was a “cold, austere palace, a sort of art gallery with bedrooms attached” that those occupying it would detest.
In the end, the government opted to spend $410,000 to remodel the existing house, transforming its appearance in ways that made it almost unrecognizable. St. Laurent took up residence in 1951, supposedly somewhat reluctantly, insisting on paying rent.
The rest of the story is familiar. Little has been spent on the house since then, and it has gradually decomposed to the point that alarmingly expensive repairs can no longer be avoided.
In some ways, the current discussion about 24 Sussex mirrors the debate in cabinet 66 years ago. Some, including prominent architects and at least one former resident, think it should be razed and replaced by a new building that would showcase Canadian architecture and stir national pride.
-
24 Sussex Drive. (Prime Minister's Residence) (exterior) - Photo by Malak
24 Sussex Drive as it appeared before 1950, before it was renovated and transformed into the prime minister's residence. The 1950-51 renovation removed much of the decoration seen in this photo, including the tower and turret. Credit: Citizen files
24 Sussex Drive as it appeared after being renovated in 1950-51 to become the prime minister's residence. The building was dramatically altered and the part on the right (east side) was added. Credit: National Capital Commission
A 1947 Austin Princess adorns the driveway in front of 24 Sussex Dr. in this photo taken during Canada's centennial, 1967.
Rt.Hon. John George Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada, and Mrs. Olive Diefenbaker with pet dog on door step of official residence, 24 Sussex Drive. October 1962 Credit: Malak/Library and Archives Canada/PA-151038
One of the main features i the original house was the elaborate fireplace, which was removed during reconstruction in 1950.
Interior of 24 Sussex. Credit: Duncan Cameron / Library and Archives Canada / e002712826
A Mountie walks through the prime minister's residence, 24, Sussex Dr., in May 1961.
The Drawing Room at 24 Sussex Drive, official residence of Canadian Prime Ministers. Walls and silk damask hangings are grey-green. Four large windows on one wall look out over the OttawaRiver to the Gatineau Hills. Credit: F.; Blouin, G. Royal/Library and Archives Canada/PA-801243
The library in the south east corner of 24 Sussex Drive, official home of Canadian Prime Ministers. The room, panelled in Canadian white pine, contains a large green marble fireplace, retained from the original house. Credit: G. Blouin/F. Royal/Library and Archives Canada/PA-801240
One of the four bedrooms on the main bedroom floor at 24 Sussex Drive, official residence of Canadian Prime Ministers. Credit: F.; Blouin, G. Royal/Library and Archives Canada/PA-801242
Ottawa, ON July 2, 1981-- Principal Secretary Jim Coutts walks in front of 24 Sussex with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. CP photo
Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau kept his prized Mercedes 300SL convertible in the garage at 24 Sussex Dr., along with skis, a tandem bicycle and a canoe. 1976.
Working lunch at 24 Sussex Drive, Rt. Hon. Pierre E. Trudeau. Credit: Duncan Cameron / Library and Archives Canada / e002712824
Working lunch at 24 Sussex Drive, Rt. Hon. Pierre E. Trudeau. Credit: Duncan Cameron / Library and Archives Canada / e002712823
The drawing room at 24 Sussex Dr., 1951.
Working lunch at 24 Sussex Drive, Rt. Hon. Pierre E. Trudeau. Credit: Duncan Cameron / Library and Archives Canada / e002712825
hSept 76: Margaret Trudeau reads to the children, Sept. 76: (l-r)Justin, MIchel and Sacha at 24 Sussex Dr. mandatory credit PHOTO BY ROD MACIVOR, one time use only..no reprint sales to anyone. *CALGARY HERALD MERLIN ARCHIVE* ORG XMIT: POS2015102310092711
Joe Clark, luncheon for Ambassador at 24 Sussex Drive - Conderence in Japan. Credit: Ted Grant / Library and Archives Canada / e002712821
Rt. Hon. Prime Minister Joe Clark with his family at 24 Sussex Drrive (spouse Maureen McTeer and daughter Catherine) Credit: Ted Grant / Library and Archives Canada / e002712822
In February 1975, construction began on the swimming pool at 24 Sussex Dr.
The front gate at 24 Sussex Dr., 1989. Lynn Ball, The Ottawa Citizen
Dining room at 24 Sussex Dr., circ. 1951.
24 Sussex Dave Chan ORG XMIT: POS2013112712583317 ORG XMIT: POS1311271300356871 // 1028 na 24 sussex
UNDATED -- Undated handout photo of the Dining room at 24 Sussex Drive, the home of Canada's Prime Minister. Handout / National Capitol Commission ORG XMIT: POS2013080713134361 ORG XMIT: POS1311271300116865
24 Sussex Dr. interior.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper works with comedian Rick Mercer on a skit for the Rick Mercer Report at 24 Sussex Drive October 21, 2006. PMO photo by Deb Ransom [PNG Merlin Archive] Prime Minister Stephen Harper & Rick Mercer at 24 Sussex Drive. Telecast date: Oct 31, 2006. ORG XMIT: POS2013112713381268 Jason Ransom / PROVINCE
Ottawa-11/17/04-NDP leader Jack Layton on Parliament Hill with a house warmiong gift for Prime Minister Paul Martin. The solar panel and caulking are to help remedy the PM's complaints that 24 Sussex needs renovations.. Chris Mikula / The Ottawa Citizen
The Canadian prime ministers' residence, 24 Sussex, is seen on the banks of the Ottawa River in Ottawa on Monday, Oct. 26, 2015. The Parliament Hill Peace Tower is in the distance. Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS
The living room at 24 Sussex Drive. National Capital Commission / Ottawa Citizen
HUBsussexreno1.jpg The Canadian prime ministers' residence, 24 Sussex, is seen on the banks of the Ottawa River in Ottawa on Monday, Oct. 26, 2015. The Parliament Hill Peace Tower is in the distance. Sean Kilpatrick / THE CANADIAN PRESS
24 Sussex Drive as it appears today. National Capital Commission / Ottawa Citizen
Aerial photo of 24 Sussex. Assignment - 122144 Photo taken at 08:52 on November 20. (Wayne Cuddington/ Ottawa Citizen) Wayne Cuddington / Ottawa Citizen
Aerial photo of 24 Sussex. Assignment - 122144 Photo taken at 08:52 on November 20. (Wayne Cuddington/ Ottawa Citizen) Wayne Cuddington / Ottawa Citizen
OTTAWA 08/14/07 -- 24 Sussex Drive. Prime Minister's residence, Stephen Harper. PM. Aerial photo taken on Aug. 14, 2007. Photo by MIKE CARROCCETTO, The Ottawa Citizen / CanWest News Service (for CITY story by VARIOUS) NEG# 85546
An aerial view of the Prime Minister's residence, 24 Sussex Drive, is shown in this August 14, 2007 file photo.
Protesters say they will demonstrate outside 24 Sussex Drive even though Justin Trudeau and his family are staying elsewhere because the house 'belongs to the nation.'
Others insist its destruction would constitute almost an act of vandalism, given the house’s connection to 10 prime ministers and Ottawa’s early timber trade. (Lumber baron Joseph Currier built it in 1868 as a wedding gift to his third wife, Hannah Wright.)
Ottawa architect Barry Padolsky, whose firm specializes in heritage conservation projects, thinks 24 Sussex should be treated as a model of conservation. “It would be a poor signal to the rest of the country if the government demolished a building that has been deemed to have historic value in its own capital.”
Historian Charlotte Gray would prefer to keep and repair the current house, as well. But, she adds, “I also know what terrible shape it’s in. If the NCC recommended that it was just too expensive to restore and should be pulled down and a really terrific architect-designed modern house built, I think that would also be acceptable.”
That would likely cost as much as or more than fixing it up, says Toon Dreessen, president of the Ontario Association of Architects. “There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the bones of that house that can’t be preserved and conserved and restored,” he says.
Dreessen says Justin Trudeau should use the renovation project “to demonstrate to the world that Canada cares about its history, about its buildings and about climate change. There is a cultural memory to that house that is more than just the sum of its parts. This house means something.”
Whatever is done, it’s important to do it right, says Dreessen, who fears the government could opt for half-measures to save money. Twenty-four Sussex “is what we say on the world stage about who we are as Canadians,” he says.
“This is our 10 Downing Street. This is our White House. We’d be shocked and dismayed if either one of those properties was radically altered or allowed to decay.”
While some foreign heads of government live in grand mansions or palaces, it’s hard to find anyone who thinks that sort of opulence is appropriate for Canada’s prime minister.
Dining room at 24 Sussex.
Certainly the current residence is far from palatial, says Gray. “Inside, it’s not a particularly beautiful house. When they did the 1950 renovation, they stripped out all the original moulding. The spaces aren’t that big, frankly. They’re also pretty bland.”
The fact that 24 Sussex was extensively modified in 1950 means those charting its course forward are less constrained by heritage preservation concerns, says Susan Ross, an assistant professor at Carleton University’s School of Canadian Studies.
“When a (heritage) building has high integrity,” Ross says, “people tend to be battling a bit for keeping every door knob. But if the integrity isn’t as high, people are usually more open-minded about what the opportunities are.”
According to Ross, 24 Sussex doesn’t have to be a preservation project. “You can have areas where there need to be changes, there need to be removals, there need to be additions.” The goal should be to strike a balance between new elements that express the present era and preserved parts that tell the story over time, she says.
A remodelled 24 Sussex could include modern additions or changes that reflect their own time, says Dreessen, who cites the contemporary glass lantern added to the Canadian Museum of Nature’s century-old building as a prime example of what’s possible.
Many also favour turning the current energy-hog residence into a green model of sustainability – an idea first suggested by the Sierra Club of Canada.
That’s also an argument against demolishing it, says Ross. “In almost every case or rehabilitation, you’re recouping your energy and other environmental costs much quickly than if you demolish and start over.”
One idea attracting little support is transforming 24 Sussex into a working residence, similar to the White House – an option reportedly developed by the NCC.
Padolsky calls that “absolutely horrifying. It would reinforce the power of a presidential prime minister. You might as well get rid of Parliament.”
dbutler@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/ButlerDon
查看原文...
