[jeremy_haak]

winnipeg is a long shot for sure, what sets it apart is the fact that construction costs are half of what they are in the other cities and that it is proposed to be a stand alone building, not the base of condo or office development like in each other proposal....the government might not love a national museum being part of "portrait gallery manor"...but who knows.

I don't necessarily mind it moving from Ottawa, but it is precisely this bidding process that I find embarrassing. If that is Winnipeg's idea, I'll vote for it in a second; a national museum doesn't belong as some sort of side amenity for a commercial highrise development.

[lrt's friend]

couldnt agree more....an institution like a national museum should be located where it is most appropriate, not sold to the highest bidder....i think we all know where harper will go with this though.

i just wanted to mention that winnipeg also submitted a proposal...not sure why it was left out of the article....the city is turning over a prime piece of land near where the human rights museum is being built...

winnipeg is a long shot for sure, what sets it apart is the fact that construction costs are half of what they are in the other cities and that it is proposed to be a stand alone building, not the base of condo or office development like in each other proposal....the government might not love a national museum being part of "portrait gallery manor"...but who knows.

winnipeg's site within the city seems to be more prominent than the others, but its still in winnipeg, so that is obviously a strike against.

i just dont want it to go to an alberta city.

Will the feds be paying for this prime real estate at fair market value? If not, again Winnipeg is trying to subsidize a federal project.

I have never been fond of the Metcalfe Street location in Ottawa. It certainly begs for some sort of development, but it is kind of out of the way from the other major tourist attractions. The best location was the original location, right on Wellington Street facing Parliament. If the gallery is not going there, are we going to have to look at a boarded up site for 10 or 20 or 30 years?

All I can say, this whole process has been designed to 'appear' to be fair, while we all know that it has been designed for Calgary to have the winning bid. This all reflects the movement of political and economic power from Ontario to Alberta. I just don't know why we have let Harris Conservatives get into federal cabinet to actually facilitate this after the majority of Ontario voters had thrown them out of office at the provincial level.

[Mille Sabords]

Will the feds be paying for this prime real estate at fair market value? If not, again Winnipeg is trying to subsidize a federal project.

I have never been fond of the Metcalfe Street location in Ottawa. It certainly begs for some sort of development, but it is kind of out of the way from the other major tourist attractions. The best location was the original location, right on Wellington Street facing Parliament. If the gallery is not going there, are we going to have to look at a boarded up site for 10 or 20 or 30 years?

All I can say, this whole process has been designed to 'appear' to be fair, while we all know that it has been designed for Calgary to have the winning bid. This all reflects the movement of political and economic power from Ontario to Alberta. I just don't know why we have let Harris Conservatives get into federal cabinet to actually facilitate this after the majority of Ontario voters had thrown them out of office at the provincial level.

I like the Metcalfe site, and I hope Claridge manages a signature building here one way or another, but it is IMO a great location for a national institution. It is the second best place for the Portrait Gallery after the original Wellington site. Why do I say that?

It is downtown so it's easy to walk to. The fact that it is NOT within the traditional federal precinct is what I like most about it. It will make tourists flow south and into the real city. Having it as part of a mixed use building is a perfect blend of town and crown in an age where Ottawa should be establishing itself as a model big city.

And I don't think we should concede defeat to other competitors. Ottawa has a stronger candidacy than the Globe and Mail thinks. The media by definition is there to stir things up.

[trueviking]

it should be in ottawa, but it should not be attached to a condo....they should build the original proposal in my opinion.

certain national museums can be outside of ottawa, but this isnt one of them...

[O-Town Hockey]

A description of the Portrait Gallery of Canada's collection:
(from http://www.portraits.gc.ca/)
The Portrait Gallery of Canada is a program of Library and Archives Canada which has gathered the largest group of national portraits in the country: more than 20,000 paintings, drawings and prints, 4 million photographs, several thousand caricatures, and ten thousand medals and philatelic items. The collection contains works by well-known professional artists as well as images made by ordinary people, and includes portraits by both Canadian and international artists.

Some of the collection's most significant portraits record the earliest European contact with Aboriginal peoples. One unique treasure is a small painting of a Beothuk woman, Desmasduit, the only portrait made from life of a now-extinct people. Other highlights are 19th-century Canadian portraits and 20th-century photographs such as Yousuf Karsh. Caricature, that marvellous counterpart to honorific portraiture, also forms an important part of the collection.

The collection has grown through the generous donations of private individuals and judicious purchases made in Canada and abroad. Long a resource for researchers, the collection shows its public face through exhibitions.



If this collection doesn't belong in Ottawa I don't know what does?? It's too bad that Yousuf Karsh isn't alive today because I'm sure he would have a lot to say about locating this great gallery in Calgary. He was a proud Ottawan for many years and spent much of his career taking photographs of famous Canadians (and internationals) right here in the capital. He displayed much of his work at his gallery on Sparks Street. This gallery belongs at 100 Wellington and I'd be interested to hear reasons to do otherwise (that don't involve $$).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/80/Portrait_Gallery_of_Canada.JPG/275px-Portrait_Gallery_of_Canada.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/YousufKarsh1991.jpg/200px-YousufKarsh1991.jpg http://keitholbermannisevil.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/winston-churchill-karsh-portrait-cropped.jpg
(The site at 100 Wellington, Karsh in front of Parliament, Karsh portrait of Winston Churchill)

[d_jeffrey]

À propos editorial from denley:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=1a0c71c1-5a6e-4e7a-b375-4572c8565491


Best quote:
City staff have determined, for no compelling reason, that the towers should be 20 and 24 storeys. What's the point? Look up from the sidewalk, and 20 storeys will seem about the same as 27.
:D

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

À propos editorial from denley:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=1a0c71c1-5a6e-4e7a-b375-4572c8565491


Best quote:

:D

:haha:

Admitedly, Denley is correct. Which is really worse? Two "tall" condo towers and a Portrait Gallery, or a parking lot? :rolleyes:

[O-Town Hockey]

Worst case scenario is portrait gallery in Cowtown, no condo towers, an empty parking lot with no prospects, and Dianne Holmes happy about this for some reason. :(

[Mille Sabords]

Worst case scenario is portrait gallery in Cowtown, no condo towers, an empty parking lot with no prospects, and Dianne Holmes happy about this for some reason. :(

Man!! well said!

[O-Town Hockey]

A couple of interesting quotes from The Ottawa Citizen in January in favour of the gallery moving to the old US Embassy. (link to article) (http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?k=10613&id=81c8dc06-57a8-4813-b80d-76d7011c118f)

Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien requested the extension in a letter to government officials in order to allow a rumoured five Ottawa bids to be pulled together with city support.

Yesterday, his spokesman, Pat Uguccioni, said the mayor is pleased the deadline has been extended, but that the mayor maintains locating the gallery outside Ottawa is going cost tax payers $50 million extra over the course of 50 years.

In the letter, Mr. O'Brien said this on top of the $11 million already spent to get the former embassy ready to host the gallery.

"(The numbers) would seem to not only negate any potential savings through a public-private partnership in another city but also to significantly increase the cost for the taxpayers of Canada," the mayor said.


"This is a collection that shows the history of this country and Canadians who played roles in that history, and they are proposing to have a private developers deeply involved in what happens to this collection," he said.

"It's the privatization of our heritage, and I think people who feel embarrassed about this are right to feel that way."

[waterloowarrior]

Talks on portrait gallery proposal stall
Council to vote on downtown proposal Wednesday
Jake RupertOttawa Citizen
Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Talks between top city officials and developer Claridge Homes over a proposal to to build a home for the Portrait Gallery of Canada broke down Tuesday.

The parties couldn't negotiate their way out of a Catch-22: city planning staff will only approve two residential towers for the downtown site if Claridge gets federal blessing for the gallery, and Claridge president Bill Malhotra says he can only get financing to continue if he has the city's unconditional approval.

The company initially wanted the city to approve two 27-storey residential towers along with the gallery, but Claridge president Bill Malhotra said he would accept 20- and 24-storey towers on the site on Metcalfe Street, which is what city staff recommend.

City council is to vote on Claridge's proposal today.

"We have to get what we have to get or otherwise, 'Good bye,' that's it," Mr. Malhotra said. "I'm not asking for anything special, just what is needed for this to work."

After a day with Mayor Larry O'Brien, several councillors and planning staff, Mr. Malhotra said he doesn't think some city officials understand the risk his company is taking on the project, and that banks won't finance something like this with "unreasonable conditions" increasing risk.

After the talks with Mr. Malhotra, the mayor said he would support the company's position. He said if the company didn't win the right to host the gallery, the project should continue with the gallery space devoted to some other public project.

"The (Portrait Gallery of Canada) should be located in our nation's capital," Mr. O'Brien said in a memo to councillors on the issue. "The City of Ottawa needs to put its best foot forward and enter into a solid partnership with a developer that will help us succeed."

Earlier this month, by a vote of six to two, the city planning committee voted to keep current density rules for the site, allowing only half the amount of residential space the company wants. The committee also voted to make approval of the development contingent on the company winning the right to host the gallery.

Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes led the charge, but she has since relented a bit. Tuesday, she said in the interest of keeping the gallery bid alive, she will propose towers of 15 and 17 storeys.

The gallery was originally planned to go into the former United States embassy building on Wellington Street across from Parliament Hill, but the Harper government cancelled that project last year, citing escalating costs, then announced a competition between Canadian cities and developers to host the gallery. It is not known how many other cities will bid.

Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein is pushing ahead with an amendment to the
National Archives Act that would force the government to locate the building in the capital region. His bill goes to a second reading next week.

"For me, it's a mission of patriotism, and I cringe that this isn't being taken seriously."


http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=cb581ef9-cabc-466a-bd9e-3bea6fdc9412&k=35530

[jeremy_haak]

Perhaps the Concert Hall could go there instead if when Calgary or Edmonton are awarded the Portrait Gallery.

[O-Town Hockey]

Senator's bill would force portrait gallery to be in Ottawa
Last Updated: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 | 4:20 AM ET Comments1Recommend3CBC News
An Ottawa senator has proposed a law that would make it illegal to locate the Portrait Gallery of Canada in Calgary, Winnipeg, Montreal — or any other city outside the National Capital Region.

Senator Jerry Grafstein's bill, which will have its second reading in the Senate next week, would amend the Library and Archives of Canada Act, requiring the gallery to be located in Ottawa, rather than any of the other nine cities competing for the museum.

"Governments have to respond to bills. They can stall it, they can reject it, but they have to respond to it. They cannot ignore it," Grafstein said Tuesday.

He argued that the gallery displaying works from the country's portrait collection needs to be close to the special building operated by the national archives where the entire collection is stored — located in Gatineau, Que., directly across the river from Ottawa.

In addition, it should be where it can attract visitors already there to see other national collections.

Grafstein was the first to suggest the gallery be housed in the historic former U.S. Embassy on Wellington Street, across from Parliament Hill, where it was originally slated to open in 2005.

Even though that site is no longer in the running and the federal government is holding a competition among nine cities to host the museum, Grafstein said he still has hope that the portrait gallery will end up in Ottawa.

"It's been an arduous voyage here. It has. But my heart beats eternal. I'm an optimist about this. Sooner or later, we will have a portrait gallery in Ottawa. We will."

Grafstein's bill needs the approval of both the Senate and the House of Commons in order to become law.

Meanwhile, Ottawa City Council was scheduled to vote Wednesday on a zoning change that will determine whether an Ottawa developer will bid for the portrait gallery.

Claridge Homes wants to provide space for the gallery in a proposed pair of 27-storey towers on Metcalfe Street. Many councillors have said the buildings are too high for the area.

The portrait gallery was announced by the Liberal government in 2001, and was to open in 2005 in the former American embassy building at an estimated cost of $22 million.

However, the project's cost grew to $45 million and its opening was delayed until at least 2007.

After Stephen Harper's Conservative government launched a review of the project in 2006, rumours began circulating that the gallery might move to Calgary.

In November 2007, the government announced that it wanted Halifax, Quebec City, Montreal, Ottawa-Gatineau, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver to bid for the gallery.

The cities have until May 16 to submit their proposals.


(from http://www.cbc.ca/arts/story/2008/04/22/ot-portrait-ottawa-080423.html)

[Kitchissippi]

:previous: I agree with that move. The government should not be allowed to move national institutions for absolutely no reason, and especially "auction" them off to bidders.

Sure, there should be other national museums outside of Ottawa, but let Calgary come up with its own concept (like a Canadian Museum of Energy) and apply for federal funding and recognition, much like Winnipeg has with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

[waterloowarrior]

edit: see next page

so we get two 20+ storey towers downtown no matter what... nice! perhaps, as Jeremy said, the concert hall could go there if the gallery doesn't go through

[O-Town Hockey]

This is great! Diane Holmes can go somewhere and cry about this now. I think it's actually kind of good that the towers are a little shorter than Place Bell so that it will offer a bit of height diversity to the skyline when looking from the East. The biggest problem Ottawa has is not necessarily the height restriction (although it is a big issue) it's the fact that our entire CBD is practically the same height. For example, it is looking much better these days from the West now that we have The Gardens and Lebreton I to really contrast how tall PDV, Crowne Plaza, and Minto Place really are. Now let's get some decent renderings of the project to come!

[m0nkyman]

Now let's get some decent renderings of the project to come!

And by decent, we mean both larger so that we can actually see it, but also that the project itself is decent. ;)

[ajldub]

This senate-proposed bill is our best chance.

[O-Town Hockey]

I'm rooting for that senate bill just as much as the next guy, but I'm just happy that this project is likely going ahead. We may lose the Portrait Gallery but there are all kinds of other (and likely more usefull) things that could go in it's place. How about a new Ottawa Public Library main branch? A concert hall for the Chamber Music Society anyone? Couldn't we use a new community centre for Centretown (Bronson Centre sucks)? That parking lot couldn't disappear faster IMO.

[Mille Sabords]

:tup: to city council for doing the right thing. Our city is emerging from the dark ages, at last.

We are not going to lose the Portrait Gallery. It will go here, in the Claridge complex. The Concert Hall will go to the Morguard site.

[kwoldtimer]

:tup: to city council for doing the right thing. Our city is emerging from the dark ages, at last.

We are not going to lose the Portrait Gallery. It will go here, in the Claridge complex. The Concert Hall will go to the Morguard site.


From your lips to you-know-who's ear! And for Calgary or Edmonton, the National Gallery - West as a way to show more of the collection than can ever be displayed in Ottawa. Win win, I'd say!

[ajldub]

This is actually a rare example of great Canadian federal politicking. The Senate is packed with Liberals who have no affinity towards Harper, no fondness for Albertan porkbarrelling, and who probably empathize with Ottawa boosters like ourselves who want to see this integral federal institution in the city where it belongs. So they write up a bill that gets introduced by a Liberal Senate into a minority Conservative House. Being a Senate bill, the House has to vote on it, and I'd say there's a good chance that most Liberal seats and maybe some of the BQ seats would vote yes. The Conservatives would vote no but they, of course, are a minority and I don't see why any other party would want to help the Harper administration in their bold favouritism of their home constituencies. And unless we have an election over the location of the Gallery(wouldn't that make for an interesting chapter in the history books?) then we could actually see the House force the paintings to stay here. If they do, then I bet they'll go back to plan A at the old American embassy. And Claridge will get their precious building permit. Not that I'm a NIMBY, just that I'm not a fan of Claridge products. But I guess I'd take a grade B condo over a parking lot any day...

[ajldub]

PS. Milles do you really think the Concert Hall is going to happen? Is there something you're not sharing with the group??;)

[waterloowarrior]

Portrait gallery bidder's plan gets OK
Council approves Claridge towers; developer set to enter competition
Jake RupertOttawa Citizen
Wednesday, April 23, 2008

OTTAWA - The city's bid to host the Portrait Gallery of Canada is alive after city council gave a developer approval for a tall building in which to house it.

"We're excited to get our bid in," said Neil Malhotra of Claridge Homes after the council decision. "We will go forward with our proposal."

Claridge originally sought permission to build space for the gallery at the base of two 27-storey residential towers at Metcalfe and Lisgar streets, where zoning permits only much shorter buildings.

Negotiations between the city and Claridge soured Tuesday over conditions the city wanted to place on the development should the company not win the right to build the gallery. But Alta Vista Councillor Peter Hume and members of Mayor Larry O'Brien's office were able to arrange a compromise Wednesday morning.

Under the deal, the company will be able to build towers of 20 and 24 storeys on the site, along with separate space for the gallery.

The city had wanted Claridge to go back to square one of the approval process if it didn't win the right to host the gallery, but under the plan council passed Wednesday, the space can be converted into a museum, community centre, concert hall or other public use if the federal gallery goes somewhere else.

Details of how this will happen and who would pay for it haven't been worked out, but Mr. Malhotra said as long as the project is proceeding, the company should be able to get the required financing, which is something it couldn't have done with the conditional approval the city wanted.

"The question was always what would happen if we don't get the gallery. Now we know that if we don't, something else will happen, so we can get going on this," he said.

He also denied accusations made by some city councillors that the company was only using the gallery bid to get development approval for the residential towers.

Mr. Malhotra said the company's acceptance of 20- and 24-storey residential towers when it first proposed twin 27-storey towers should put those thoughts to bed.

"If we were doing this just to get approval, we would have stuck to 27 storeys," he said. "This is a legacy project for our family, and we are going to give it our best shot at getting the gallery."

Wednesday's council vote comes after a twisted history for the gallery project.

The gallery was originally supposed to go into the former United States embassy building on Wellington Street across from Parliament Hill. The Conservative government cancelled that project last year, citing escalating costs, then announced a competition among Canadian cities and developers to host and build the gallery. It is not known how many other bids are being prepared.

The move to have a bidding war amongst cities and developers for the gallery sparked outrage from people who feel it should be in Ottawa along with other national institutions. Some argue that having a national collection housed in a privately owned building is distasteful and makes the country look bad on the international scene.

The home for the portrait gallery "should be here in our nation's capital," said Mayor Larry O'Brien.

"I am pleased council made the right decision, allowing us to move forward into a partnership with a developer that will secure a solid bid for our city."

Somerset Councillor Diane Holmes, in whose ward the project sits, led the charge against it.

She was willing to accept the buildings, but she wanted Claridge to have to start over if the government puts the gallery somewhere else. She said she feels that the federal government wants to locate the gallery in Calgary and that Ottawa's bid is almost bound to fail, so it was folly to allow the buildings.

"I think it's pretty obvious that this whole process is about the federal government getting as much money as possible out of municipalities and prov-inces, and we don't have the funds to compete," she said.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=a50d2d09-86f8-4e96-8d4b-eb472b17ac94&k=97726

updated article with some more quotes

[rodionx]

"... under the plan council passed Wednesday, the space can be converted into a museum, community centre, concert hall or other public use..."

... parole office, methadone clinic, safe injection site... :P

[Bucolic Urbanity]

... parole office, methadone clinic, safe injection site... :P

Blood rendering plant, slaughterhouse, sewage treatment plant.

[Bucolic Urbanity]

:tup: to city council for doing the right thing. Our city is emerging from the dark ages, at last.


Reading Denley's column today, it seemed like it was a very bizarre Council discussion in which Doucet spouted poetry slamming the whole process and Holmes put her proverbial tuppence in.

[jeremy_haak]

Reading Denley's column today, it seemed like it was a very bizarre Council discussion in which Doucet spouted poetry slamming the whole process and Holmes put her proverbial tuppence in.

Rather appropriate considering the entire process is a farce.

[ajldub]

Yeah well wait and see what les Senateurs d'Ottawa and their bill have to say about all this...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

The Senator who put this bill forward is now my Favourite Senator...Besides Alfie of course... ;) :P

[cdnklc]

The Senator who put this bill forward is now my Favourite Senator...Besides Alfie of course... ;) :P

although he may not be everyone's favourite senator:

"an ottawa senator of the non-hockey playing sort has proposed a law that would make it illegal to locate the portrait gallery of canada outside the national capital region. jerry grafstein argued that it needs to be close to the special building operated by the national archives where the entire collection is currently stored. in gatineau. in quebec.

"he says it should be where it can attract visitors already there to see other national collections. not that the collection can actually now be seen at all - other than in satellite exhibits across the country.

"keeping the portrait gallery in ottawa because it will continue to cost $2.5 million dollars to ship exhibits back and forth? as far as i know, that is the current cost with no portrait gallery in ottawa - or anywhere else for that matter.

"the same $2.5 million would probably still service an actual portrait gallery wherever it gets built anywhere in the country assuming the same satellite exhibitions are likely to continue to take place, even if it was in ottawa. besides, i would bet most of those “shipping costs” are incurred in preparation and receiving anyway, not “on the road”. an extra 15 or 20 hours in the truck once it’s in the truck probably costs next to nothing.

"and the elitist attitude that says "we should all make a pilgrimage to our national capital once in our life time" to visit our national treasures? what about those that will never be able to afford that trip? what about the grade 2 art class in halifax or the grade 8 social studies class in vancouver? should they not have some reasonable access to some of our countries treasures as well as those that go to school in ottawa?

"certainly not all of those national treasures will ever be disbursed and certainly the majority of them should remain in the national capital. but just a certainly, enough of them could - and should - be located elsewhere to inspire and enthrall and instill a sense of pride in things that most of us will never otherwise be directly exposed to?

"maybe it would also be good for the entire country to have that many more reasons to visit other cities and provinces by adding one more potential destination for them to share along with our shared ownership. and maybe that feeling will have that many more of us want to make that pilgrimage to ottawa at some time in our lives out of that same sense of shared pride in ownership rather than as outsiders being allowed the privilege to visit what we own too. and that would be good for ottawa as well.

"this is not a matter of one-up-manship or petty jealousy or regional feuding - this is about an opportunity to add one more brick to building our country's foundation - not ottawa's foundation but canada's."

perhaps it would not be out of line for the rest of the country to be able to provide proper premises for some of our national treasures so those citizens from victoria to halifax who cannot afford to visit ottawa will still be afforded the same privileges for their children as those skating up and down the rideau canal get to take for granted regardless of what your favourite senator might think.

[kwoldtimer]

although he may not be everyone's favourite senator:

"an ottawa senator of the non-hockey playing sort has proposed a law that would make it illegal to locate the portrait gallery of canada outside the national capital region. jerry grafstein argued that it needs to be close to the special building operated by the national archives where the entire collection is currently stored. in gatineau. in quebec.

"he says it should be where it can attract visitors already there to see other national collections. not that the collection can actually now be seen at all - other than in satellite exhibits across the country.

"keeping the portrait gallery in ottawa because it will continue to cost $2.5 million dollars to ship exhibits back and forth? as far as i know, that is the current cost with no portrait gallery in ottawa - or anywhere else for that matter.

"the same $2.5 million would probably still service an actual portrait gallery wherever it gets built anywhere in the country assuming the same satellite exhibitions are likely to continue to take place, even if it was in ottawa. besides, i would bet most of those “shipping costs” are incurred in preparation and receiving anyway, not “on the road”. an extra 15 or 20 hours in the truck once it’s in the truck probably costs next to nothing.

"and the elitist attitude that says "we should all make a pilgrimage to our national capital once in our life time" to visit our national treasures? what about those that will never be able to afford that trip? what about the grade 2 art class in halifax or the grade 8 social studies class in vancouver? should they not have some reasonable access to some of our countries treasures as well as those that go to school in ottawa?

"certainly not all of those national treasures will ever be disbursed and certainly the majority of them should remain in the national capital. but just a certainly, enough of them could - and should - be located elsewhere to inspire and enthrall and instill a sense of pride in things that most of us will never otherwise be directly exposed to?

"maybe it would also be good for the entire country to have that many more reasons to visit other cities and provinces by adding one more potential destination for them to share along with our shared ownership. and maybe that feeling will have that many more of us want to make that pilgrimage to ottawa at some time in our lives out of that same sense of shared pride in ownership rather than as outsiders being allowed the privilege to visit what we own too. and that would be good for ottawa as well.

"this is not a matter of one-up-manship or petty jealousy or regional feuding - this is about an opportunity to add one more brick to building our country's foundation - not ottawa's foundation but canada's."

perhaps it would not be out of line for the rest of the country to be able to provide proper premises for some of our national treasures so those citizens from victoria to halifax who cannot afford to visit ottawa will still be afforded the same privileges for their children as those skating up and down the rideau canal get to take for granted regardless of what your favourite senator might think.

Not sure who is being quoted, but to see an "elitist attitude" (seems to assume that that would somehow be a bad thing!?) in visiting Ottawa seems a serious stretch. Not sure either how putting a National Portrait Gallery in Calgary would help the allegedly art deprived school students of Halifax. If someone wants to make an advocacy argument, they could at least try to marshall some serious thinking. I agree completely with the final paragraph, but don't think it relates to the location of the National Portrait Gallery.

[cdnklc]

Not sure who is being quoted, but to see an "elitist attitude" (seems to assume that that would somehow be a bad thing!?) in visiting Ottawa seems a serious stretch. Not sure either how putting a National Portrait Gallery in Calgary would help the allegedly art deprived school students of Halifax. If someone wants to make an advocacy argument, they could at least try to marshall some serious thinking. I agree completely with the final paragraph, but don't think it relates to the location of the National Portrait Gallery.
it's not "just" the national portrait gallery, regardless of whether it gets built in calgary or edmonton or victoria or halifax or any of the other "acceptable" cities to receive proposals from - including ottawa. each of those cities should have the opportunity and the privilege of being the custodian of one - or perhaps even more than one - of our national treasures. not only does it beat keeping them in warehouses for no-one to see, it will allow something to happen that doesn't presently. it would allow the majority of canadian citizens to experience - and take pride in - a shared piece of our national heritage in a manner that is impossible to take place from afar.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

although he may not be everyone's favourite senator:

"an ottawa senator of the non-hockey playing sort has proposed a law that would make it illegal to locate the portrait gallery of canada outside the national capital region. jerry grafstein argued that it needs to be close to the special building operated by the national archives where the entire collection is currently stored. in gatineau. in quebec.

"he says it should be where it can attract visitors already there to see other national collections. not that the collection can actually now be seen at all - other than in satellite exhibits across the country.

"keeping the portrait gallery in ottawa because it will continue to cost $2.5 million dollars to ship exhibits back and forth? as far as i know, that is the current cost with no portrait gallery in ottawa - or anywhere else for that matter.

"the same $2.5 million would probably still service an actual portrait gallery wherever it gets built anywhere in the country assuming the same satellite exhibitions are likely to continue to take place, even if it was in ottawa. besides, i would bet most of those “shipping costs” are incurred in preparation and receiving anyway, not “on the road”. an extra 15 or 20 hours in the truck once it’s in the truck probably costs next to nothing.

"and the elitist attitude that says "we should all make a pilgrimage to our national capital once in our life time" to visit our national treasures? what about those that will never be able to afford that trip? what about the grade 2 art class in halifax or the grade 8 social studies class in vancouver? should they not have some reasonable access to some of our countries treasures as well as those that go to school in ottawa?

"certainly not all of those national treasures will ever be disbursed and certainly the majority of them should remain in the national capital. but just a certainly, enough of them could - and should - be located elsewhere to inspire and enthrall and instill a sense of pride in things that most of us will never otherwise be directly exposed to?

"maybe it would also be good for the entire country to have that many more reasons to visit other cities and provinces by adding one more potential destination for them to share along with our shared ownership. and maybe that feeling will have that many more of us want to make that pilgrimage to ottawa at some time in our lives out of that same sense of shared pride in ownership rather than as outsiders being allowed the privilege to visit what we own too. and that would be good for ottawa as well.

"this is not a matter of one-up-manship or petty jealousy or regional feuding - this is about an opportunity to add one more brick to building our country's foundation - not ottawa's foundation but canada's."

perhaps it would not be out of line for the rest of the country to be able to provide proper premises for some of our national treasures so those citizens from victoria to halifax who cannot afford to visit ottawa will still be afforded the same privileges for their children as those skating up and down the rideau canal get to take for granted regardless of what your favourite senator might think.

Yeah, so? I don't care. By all means, set up proper premises in other cities and have rotating exhibits of portraits of some of our most famous and historical figures. But the Portrait Gallery self and the bulk of the portraits, belongs here in the Nation's Capital.

Just stop and think about it; Out of all the G8 nations and other countries in the world, how many of them have their National Institutions (including their Portrait Galleries) outside of their National Capital?

[jeremy_haak]

I like how the US often has satellite facilities across the country. Relevant in this case is the National Archives, which has something like 10 affiliated archives across the US. Perhaps we could have something like that. Maybe even making it more comprehensive, with exhibits of different material from institutions such as the Museum of Civilization, or the National Art Gallery could travel across the country.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I like how the US often has satellite facilities across the country. Relevant in this case is the National Archives, which has something like 10 affiliated archives across the US. Perhaps we could have something like that.

That, I don't mind.

Having the actual main Portrait Gallery outside of the Nation's Capital, that I DO mind.


However I don't really see the need to try and do something like that for the Museum of Nature since, correct me if I am wrong, the other major cities of Canada have their own museums filled with dinosaur fossils and other fun, scientific and biological/geological things... :sly:

[m0nkyman]

cdnklc, you might want to mention your direct involvement in the Edmonton bid if you're going to jump into this debate.

[d_jeffrey]

cdnklc, you might want to mention your direct involvement in the Edmonton bid if you're going to jump into this debate.

LOL, are you kidding me? How hypocrite.... If there's anything about Canadian heritage, I find it better to go to one place and be able to understand Canada there, then to go to every city in Canada.

I don't mind satellite connections, but the main one should be in Ottawa, and I'm relatively new to this town so. It's not a city pride thing.

[cdnklc]

cdnklc, you might want to mention your direct involvement in the Edmonton bid if you're going to jump into this debate.
not meant to be a secret - i spend enough time and post in the alberta forums often enough to assume that most who follow the same threads i do know who i am. the "cdn" is short for canadian and "klc" are my initials. i didn't make a big deal of it here because the discussion was taking place at a level other than discussing individual bids or individual city's bids and i tried to keep it at that level. and my opinions on the topic at that level have nothing to do with our "direct" involvement as you put it other than being prepared to back them up.

ken cantor

[m0nkyman]

Ken, you are the commercial manager for Qualico. The developer behind Edmonton's bid. There's nothing wrong with that. I believe that you don't see anything wrong with having this institution outside of Ottawa or you wouldn't be involved with the bid. However, making clear who you are, and then defending your position allows for a bit more clarity about who you are and where you are coming from.

[cdnklc]

Ken, you are the commercial manager for Qualico. The developer behind Edmonton's bid. There's nothing wrong with that. I believe that you don't see anything wrong with having this institution outside of Ottawa or you wouldn't be involved with the bid. However, making clear who you are, and then defending your position allows for a bit more clarity about who you are and where you are coming from.
m0nkeyman,
we frequent enough common threads and forums for you to know i have no problem with that in the least. :)
ken

[Mille Sabords]

I don't like how personal this discussion has become and I would have preferred not knowing the real-world identity of cdnklc.

No matter what is said by whom, Ottawa's is the best bid and I believe it will carry the day. In the end maybe it was a worthwhile exercise for Ottawa to reconnect with the reasons why it should have a national institution and what meaning it holds as a city to the rest of the country. And it may have been a good way to get us to hone our competitive skills, which we lack. We all know the Alberta cities can and do compete ferociously.

[cdnklc]

I don't like how personal this discussion has become and I would have preferred not knowing the real-world identity of cdnklc.

No matter what is said by whom, Ottawa's is the best bid and I believe it will carry the day. In the end maybe it was a worthwhile exercise for Ottawa to reconnect with the reasons why it should have a national institution and what meaning it holds as a city to the rest of the country. And it may have been a good way to get us to hone our competitive skills, which we lack. We all know the Alberta cities can and do compete ferociously.
by way of additional background, something m0nkeyman knows from some of our "other forum" and "other thread" discussions is that i am not a fan of anonymous internet posting and a quick google search (or even a quick skyscraperpage search for that matter) would provide links to some interesting discussions along those lines as well as readily identifying who i am. the google search of just cdnklc would probably tell you more about me than i remember.

as to which is the best bid, that will not be for me to determine despite the national post's attempted rankings today.

and as to whether all of our national institutions should remain inaccessible to most of our citizens and their children regardless of where they live, that is also not for me to determine, but i make no more secret of my opinion in that regard than i do about who i am.

[d_jeffrey]

I don't like how personal this discussion has become and I would have preferred not knowing the real-world identity of cdnklc.

No matter what is said by whom, Ottawa's is the best bid and I believe it will carry the day. In the end maybe it was a worthwhile exercise for Ottawa to reconnect with the reasons why it should have a national institution and what meaning it holds as a city to the rest of the country. And it may have been a good way to get us to hone our competitive skills, which we lack. We all know the Alberta cities can and do compete ferociously.


This is not about the "best bid", this is the federal governement dumping a federal responsability to provinces and cities. Alberta: "we will give 40M$ to the winner!" is actually part of this problem. The city don't have to do a competition, the feds can pay that by themselves.

[citizen j]

This Portrait Gallery process is the thin edge of the wedge.
Up next: Museum of Science and Technology
followed by: The Encana Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Resources and The Scotiabank Ministry of Finance.

If your city or company would like to sponsor a federal institution, send all inquiries to Canada Inc. CEO Stephen Harper.

[cdnklc]

This Portrait Gallery process is the thin edge of the wedge.
Up next: Museum of Science and Technology
followed by: The Encana Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Resources and The Scotiabank Ministry of Finance.

If your city or company would like to sponsor a federal institution, send all inquiries to Canada Inc. CEO Stephen Harper.

thank you for adding some perspective to my previous post regarding anonymity and how it makes it too easy to trivialize real issues and avoid decent discussion or real debate simply by making it so easy to trade reason for insults while retaining no accountability for them. :(

if not welcome for other than insults, i would be happy to depart this forum and discuss the issues from my perspective elsewhere.

with no further comment on whether or not that would be either fitting or representative of some of the very issues these discussions should be addressing instead of hiding from.

[citizen j]

^Okay, so perhaps I did engage in a bit of hyperbole.
Nevertheless, the sentiment remains unchanged. The idea that an institution can be "bought" through what is essentially a politically motivated auction and, in this case, with the added baggage of what looks like porkbarrelling disguised as P3-ism is deeply disconcerting. But not, I suppose, if you happen to live in the city/province with the winning bid? And just to keep this from turning into an East/West slingfest, I'm from Edmonton.

[ajldub]

Good point, citizen j. I worry about the museum of science and tech sometimes. The good thing is that by the time we have to pay for a new one there will probably be a new administration that is hopefully less bold in its porkbarrelling.

Can't we just build a prison or something in Calgary? Because really, this is more about Alberta feeling that it has the right to piece of federal funding than wanting to complement Calgary's cultural institutions with paintings of deceased central Canadians. Sorry if I'm coming off harsh but it's true, and I'm running out of different ways to express my point.

ajldub - Ottawa resident born and raised, with no personal investment in the Claridge bid whatsoever...

[cdnklc]

Good point, citizen j. I worry about the museum of science and tech sometimes. The good thing is that by the time we have to pay for a new one there will probably be a new administration that is hopefully less bold in its porkbarrelling.

Can't we just build a prison or something in Calgary? Because really, this is more about Alberta feeling that it has the right to piece of federal funding than wanting to complement Calgary's cultural institutions with paintings of deceased central Canadians. Sorry if I'm coming off harsh but it's true, and I'm running out of different ways to express my point.

ajldub - Ottawa resident born and raised, with no personal investment in the Claridge bid whatsoever...
you worry about the museum of science and tech sometimes???

try worrying a bit more about your manners and respect for the rest of the country.

a new administration that is hopefully less bold in porkbarrelling???

now which one would you like it to be less bold than?

just build a prison or something in calgary???

no need - it seems my neighbours to the south could just visit you in ottawa to enjoy that feeling.

more about alberta feeling that it has the right to a piece of federal funding???

well i guess we sure wouldn't want any federal funding to get spent anywhere outside of ottawa now would we. not that it matters where some of those funds may have come from as long as ottawa can keep all the pieces they want - for the benefit of the rest of the country of course.

running out of different ways to express your point???

i wouldn't worry about trying to find different ways to express your point, you're pretty clear. insufferable and selfish perhaps, but pretty clear.

ottawa resident born and raised???

i never would have guessed.

no personal investment in the claridge bid whatsoever???

not surprising - the point you work so hard to make is usually accompanied by the need to use other people's money to make it with no personal commitment behind it whatsoever.

ciao

[ajldub]

ciao baby!

[jeremy_haak]

^ I don't really see why you are taking this so personally, cdnklc. You don't see any of us weeping over the Human Rights Museum being located in Winnipeg. As far as I'm concerned there are four major concerns about this process:

1) The portrait gallery, more than many other types of institutions, has a strong link to the official and political parts of the government. Many of us, not just Ottawans, feel that the capital is the most appropriate place for an institution like this for that reason.

2) The government has basically outsourced our heritage to the highest bidder, and private one at that. It deserves more reverence and respect than that. It's humiliating to us as Canadians.

3) There is a general distrust in the process, compounded by the fact that the government extended the deadline for Calgary to pull together a proposal, that the process is really just a thinly-veiled excuse for Stephen Harper to send off a national institution to Calgary, or otherwise Alberta.

4) Ottawans are constantly reminded that it is not just their city, but the whole country's city (need I mention the NCC?). Past governments understood this and tried to build a capital the whole country could be proud of, sometimes with great success, and sometimes to the disservice of the community. It is a little distressing to see such ambivolence towards a city that supposedly belongs to the whole country. It seems some people would rather have the capital dismantled and get their piece of the pie, then have a capital that all Canadians can be proud of.

[Mille Sabords]

Well, since the discussion has descended to this level, allow me a few:

you worry about the museum of science and tech sometimes???

try worrying a bit more about your manners and respect for the rest of the country.

"Respect for the rest of the country" is to allow our city to get fucked by whoever wants a piece of some action? Sorry, doesn't work that way anymore. How about the rest of the country start giving Ottawa some respect. We had our industry bulldozed and our manufacturing economy killed by the Feds in the name of being a "beautiful national capital" without smokestacks, that all Canada could be proud of. We endured job losses, massive dislocations of people through neighbourhood demolitions. We did our job as a good little national capital, always respectful of the rest of the country, always careful not to compete too hard or piss off the other cities. And we were assured we'd all have good government jobs as our reward...

And then what happened? The Feds lay people off as they please; they invest in the national treasures when they please; they get pig-headed about things like the Greenbelt and the Experimental Farm that cause us to sprawl; they disguise our city as a small town, as if it didn't count on the world map; they give us platitudes instead of making us the true cutting edge cultural and urban representative of Canada.

And all this is done by a federal government MADE UP OF MP's FROM ALL OTHER PARTS OF CANADA, WHO COME TO OTTAWA TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES, NEVER THINKING ABOUT OUR CITY.

Even our own MP's, even from the party in power (John Baird) are content to fuck us over with total impunity whenever the party line demands it.

You know what? I've got Ottawa alienation.

a new administration that is hopefully less bold in porkbarrelling???

now which one would you like it to be less bold than?

There is never any porkbarrelling that benefits Ottawa, the City. There are small bones thrown our way to appease us and make sure we are kept passive (and also to prevent Montrealers from running back home in disgust). Porkbarreling is sending jobs that rightly belong in the nation's capital, to some riding that happens to elect the somebody of the day.

just build a prison or something in calgary???

no need - it seems my neighbours to the south could just visit you in ottawa to enjoy that feeling.

Well said, Deadmontonian. Hey, maybe your bid for the Gallery is indeed the most organized and maybe it will win... but who'd visit?

more about alberta feeling that it has the right to a piece of federal funding???

well i guess we sure wouldn't want any federal funding to get spent anywhere outside of ottawa now would we. not that it matters where some of those funds may have come from as long as ottawa can keep all the pieces they want - for the benefit of the rest of the country of course.

The federal government is nothing but an ATM for all other regions except Ottawa. Just look at the pathetic architecture of any federal building built since world war II. Does this make you proud of your national capital? Is this what Canada wants?

As the capital, we are "programmed" with sometimes good, often bland and boring shit, by an indifferent and prehistoric government agency that is just there to "fulfill a mandate" and remains caught in its bureaucratic rigidity, incapable of any true creativity.

As the fourth biggest city in the country, we have to languish behind every other major city for transit funding, infrastructure funding, health care funding, etc... because, hey, we're lucky enough to be the capital.

Ottawa was selected to be the capital of Canada and all provinces, whether they joined in 1867 or later, knew this coming in.

And chow to you as well.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Well, since the discussion has descended to this level, allow me a few:



"Respect for the rest of the country" is to allow our city to get fucked by whoever wants a piece of some action? Sorry, doesn't work that way anymore. How about the rest of the country start giving Ottawa some respect. We had our industry bulldozed and our manufacturing economy killed by the Feds in the name of being a "beautiful national capital" without smokestacks, that all Canada could be proud of. We endured job losses, massive dislocations of people through neighbourhood demolitions. We did our job as a good little national capital, always respectful of the rest of the country, always careful not to compete too hard or piss off the other cities. And we were assured we'd all have good government jobs as our reward...

And then what happened? The Feds lay people off as they please; they invest in the national treasures when they please; they get pig-headed about things like the Greenbelt and the Experimental Farm that cause us to sprawl; they disguise our city as a small town, as if it didn't count on the world map; they give us platitudes instead of making us the true cutting edge cultural and urban representative of Canada.

And all this is done by a federal government MADE UP OF MP's FROM ALL OTHER PARTS OF CANADA, WHO COME TO OTTAWA TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES, NEVER THINKING ABOUT OUR CITY.

Even our own MP's, even from the party in power (John Baird) are content to fuck us over with total impunity whenever the party line demands it.

You know what? I've got Ottawa alienation.



There is never any porkbarrelling that benefits Ottawa, the City. There are small bones thrown our way to appease us and make sure we are kept passive (and also to prevent Montrealers from running back home in disgust). Porkbarreling is sending jobs that rightly belong in the nation's capital, to some riding that happens to elect the somebody of the day.



Well said, Deadmontonian. Hey, maybe your bid for the Gallery is indeed the most organized and maybe it will win... but who'd visit?



The federal government is nothing but an ATM for all other regions except Ottawa. Just look at the pathetic architecture of any federal building built since world war II. Does this make you proud of your national capital? Is this what Canada wants?

As the capital, we are "programmed" with sometimes good, often bland and boring shit, by an indifferent and prehistoric government agency that is just there to "fulfill a mandate" and remains caught in its bureaucratic rigidity, incapable of any true creativity.

As the fourth biggest city in the country, we have to languish behind every other major city for transit funding, infrastructure funding, health care funding, etc... because, hey, we're lucky enough to be the capital.

Ottawa was selected to be the capital of Canada and all provinces, whether they joined in 1867 or later, knew this coming in.

And chow to you as well.


:cool: :cheers: :tup: :worship:

[clynnog]

[QUOTE=Mille Sabords;3517919
Porkbarreling is sending jobs that rightly belong in the nation's capital, to some riding that happens to elect the somebody of the day.
[/QUOTE]

I am reminded of that every April 30th and quarterly through the year as I file my annual tax return and my quarterly tax return and GST payments and they are sent to some place called Shawinigan Sud.....hmm, I wonder how that riding got a large tax centre.

[citizen j]

sigh.
Okay, I understand that the country is very large and that Ottawa is not an easy trip to make for many Canadians. So, why not spread all the national institutions around? There seems to be no easy solution to that issue that will appease all parties.

So, instead of answering the question, I'll pose another hypothetical question. Let's imagine that a provinicial government, say Alberta's, makes an announcement that they will build a new stand-alone provincial art gallery (after having decided that the location on Jasper Ave doesn't suit the needs of an expanding institution). A new site is found in directly across from City Hall, and roughly $10 million is spent on architectural plans and other preliminary work. Then, there's a change in government and the new premier decides he would like to "thank" those who have helped elect him by relocating that art gallery closer to and possibly even in his own riding in southern Alberta. But in order that the whole process not smell suspiciously of pork, the rhetoric surrounding the bidding process addresses things like "accessibility to our cultural heritage by all Albertans, and not just those in Edmonton." So, in the end, maybe Lethbridge gets it, maybe Calgary, maybe Medicine Hat. Is there a problem with this? Not if you're in Calgary, Lethbridge or Medicine Hat. You might argue that a provincial institution belongs in the provincial capital but if you're from Edmonton and suggest this, the rest of the province calls you petty and pampered and self-centred and maybe even parasitic, or worse. "Why should our tax dollars go towards building something we don't have access to?" they ask. "Because that's one of the functions of a capital city," an Edmontonian might respond. But, of course, there is no way for an Edmontonian to win this argument with a Calgarian or a ... what do you call someone from Medicine Hat?

So, back to the present issue. There is no way for an Ottawan to make an assertion in favour of Ottawa without drawing criticism. That doesn't mean the position is wrong. It simply means that now, in addition to Montreal and Toronto (and Quebec City and Kingston) grumbling over the fact that they weren't chosen as the capital over some backwater-turned-Westminster... etc., etc., etc., we now have an expanded chorus of cities asking why Ottawa should be allowed to function as the capital in any real way beyond its status as the official site of Parliament. And content that their provincial tax dollars be spent to secure a successful bid for a gallery just as long as their federal tax dollars aren't.

[Mille Sabords]

:previous: :cheers: well said, citizen_j

[jitterbug]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how many people really care about a portrait gallery? When I visit a major capital city, say Washington or Paris, do I go looking for their portrait gallery? Not likely. But there there are plenty of excellent museums in these cities, as there are in Ottawa too.

If Edmonton or Calgary reeeally want the portrait gallery, I say let them have it. Ottawa still (rightfully) has the National Gallery, Museum of Civilization and many others with broad public appeal.

The fact that the current government wants to build a national museum by private developers as part of a residential or commercial complex is plain silly. We in Ottawa should simply refuse to stoop to that level!

[kwoldtimer]

On a different note, has anyone seen any details of proposals for bids from cities other than Ottawa? I don't recall seeing anything yet. If someone comes up with something truly spectacular, it might make the loss less bitter, knowing that the country has gained a true showcase. The Claridge proposal seems to serve its purpose, but it doesn't exactly set off design fireworks, from what we've seen so far.

[pogue]

done.

[ajldub]

Glad to see other people think that this whole thing is as bizarre and shady as I do. I still haven't heard one argument that holds any water as to why the Alberta government is, in effect, buying a federal cultural institution from Ottawa.

[jitterbug]

Glad to see other people think that this whole thing is as bizarre and shady as I do. I still haven't heard one argument that holds any water as to why the Alberta government is, in effect, buying a federal cultural institution from Ottawa.

Could it be there isn't one?

The only possible explanation I can offer is that Harper is playing politics and wants to give his home province a gift from Ottawa while he still can. Plus, it would, at least figuratively, enable him to show the city of Ottawa the finger.

[Mille Sabords]

Could it be there isn't one?

The only possible explanation I can offer is that Harper is playing politics and wants to give his home province a gift from Ottawa while he still can. Plus, it would, at least figuratively, enable him to show the city of Ottawa the finger.

Yeah, funny way to reward a city where 10 out of its 14 metro ridings voted Tory.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

sigh.
Okay, I understand that the country is very large and that Ottawa is not an easy trip to make for many Canadians. So, why not spread all the national institutions around? There seems to be no easy solution to that issue that will appease all parties.

So, instead of answering the question, I'll pose another hypothetical question. Let's imagine that a provinicial government, say Alberta's, makes an announcement that they will build a new stand-alone provincial art gallery (after having decided that the location on Jasper Ave doesn't suit the needs of an expanding institution). A new site is found in directly across from City Hall, and roughly $10 million is spent on architectural plans and other preliminary work. Then, there's a change in government and the new premier decides he would like to "thank" those who have helped elect him by relocating that art gallery closer to and possibly even in his own riding in southern Alberta. But in order that the whole process not smell suspiciously of pork, the rhetoric surrounding the bidding process addresses things like "accessibility to our cultural heritage by all Albertans, and not just those in Edmonton." So, in the end, maybe Lethbridge gets it, maybe Calgary, maybe Medicine Hat. Is there a problem with this? Not if you're in Calgary, Lethbridge or Medicine Hat. You might argue that a provincial institution belongs in the provincial capital but if you're from Edmonton and suggest this, the rest of the province calls you petty and pampered and self-centred and maybe even parasitic, or worse. "Why should our tax dollars go towards building something we don't have access to?" they ask. "Because that's one of the functions of a capital city," an Edmontonian might respond. But, of course, there is no way for an Edmontonian to win this argument with a Calgarian or a ... what do you call someone from Medicine Hat?

So, back to the present issue. There is no way for an Ottawan to make an assertion in favour of Ottawa without drawing criticism. That doesn't mean the position is wrong. It simply means that now, in addition to Montreal and Toronto (and Quebec City and Kingston) grumbling over the fact that they weren't chosen as the capital over some backwater-turned-Westminster... etc., etc., etc., we now have an expanded chorus of cities asking why Ottawa should be allowed to function as the capital in any real way beyond its status as the official site of Parliament. And content that their provincial tax dollars be spent to secure a successful bid for a gallery just as long as their federal tax dollars aren't.


:cheers: :tup: :worship:

[lrt's friend]

I have to say that I am very disheartened by the attitude of the present government towards the city where the government is the top employer. Many think we are so privileged but when one consider's the government's dominance here and the lack of other industry, for whatever reason, the government has a certain responsibility to provide certain amenities that otherwise would be built with private money and initiative.

One just has to look at the history of Ottawa, and how thankfully a few Prime Ministers took a personal interest to elevate this town beyond its frontier origins based on booze and brawling and religious strife. And it is so strange, that those Prime Ministers who made Ottawa more than an embarrassment to this country were all Liberals.

The current government seems to not give a damn about how this city appears to other Canadians or foreign visitors and is content to have a boarded up building standing across from Parliament for perhaps as long as Lebreton Flats has laid vacant.

[ajldub]

:previous:
Funny you should mention that, lrt, as I too was thinking that the other day. All the great advances in Ottawa's federal areas have been under Liberal administration. I guess only they understand the importance of a proud capital in a proud nation. Chretien had so many great projects that were to be part of his legacy; too bad the only one he had turned soil on before he left was the war museum. The bank street building on parliament hill would have been a great addition. Then there is the basic upkeep that the Conservatives aren't even spending on - like the western block. Why hasn't that building been restored? It looks like crap sitting there with a screen on it. I really hope that Harper will be back in Alberta by the time it comes to paying for a new museum of science and tech. We need Dion to bow out so Ignatieff can give him a real run for 24 Sussex. I'm writing this and I've never even voted for the Libs!

[jitterbug]

I've lived in Ottawa my entire life. Having travelled widely in Europe and North America, it makes me both sad and angry at how run-down Ottawa is these days. Older buildings throughout downtown are falling apart - both those in private hands as well as those owned by the federal government (e.g., Parliament buildings).

Our infrastructure is crumbling, roads are in terrible shape, and our public transit system is barely keeping up with demand. Not even new construction offers much hope - most new buildings are bland and utilitarian (you really have to be a fan of beige and grey around here).

When I host out-of-town visitors I focus on what's good about this place, that is, the natural areas - Rideau Canal, Ottawa River, Hog's Back park, Gatineau Park. Then a quick tour of Parliament Hill and the Byward Market and you're pretty much done.

[movebyleap]

I couldn't agree with you more, Jitterbug!! My family hails from Eastern Europe. I remember the Communist era days when cities, from Budapest to Prague to Krakow looked run down and filthy. Nowadays they are showcases of cleanliness, urban design, audacious architecture, fantastic landscaping, effective rapid transit and great infrastructure. Visitors from these places who used to be overwhelmed by Ottawa's beauty (I remember a friend from Poland saying that Ottawa was "too clean" back in 1987), are shocked at the small town, provincial feel of a capital in one of the richest and most successful countries in the world. I've heard expressions of disgust at our potholes, graffiti, crumbling buildings, dirt in the streets, panhandlers, and WEEDS!! Yes - there is a disbelief at how can a city of such calibre allow waist high weeds to grow in and around downtown.
It is embarrassing and humiliating. I, too, rush visitors through the obligatory tourist attracions. Then we head to Quebec City, Montreal, occasionally Toronto, Kingston, or beautiful Boston or New York. Unfortunate!

[ajldub]

I know the feeling. But we have come a long way in the last 20 years and potholes and graffiti aside, this city has great bones that will show themselves when the feds start investing properly in our cities. I am optimistic about Ottawa's future...

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

I am optimistic about Ottawa's future...

So am I, so long as other Canadians get it in gear and toss aside this petty regionalism.

Oh, and I'm also optimistic so long as Conservatives aren't in power. For the city itself, they are bad news. Who was it who noticed that the only governments that invested in our National Capital were all Liberal Governments? :haha:

[movebyleap]

Is there anything specific that the Chretien/Martin government did for Ottawa that I may not be aware of?

[jeremy_haak]

Is there anything specific that the Chretien/Martin government did for Ottawa that I may not be aware of?

Chretien:
War Museum
Capital Infocentre
now defunct Canada and the World Pavilion
now defunct plan for grand boulevard on Metcalfe
original plans for Portrait Gallery
Political History Museum

Martin:
cancelling Political History Museum

At least Chretien tried, though most of his efforts seem to have been a flop.

[Kitchissippi]

^ few more things

The archives building in Gatineau
The held up plans for the P. E. Trudeau Federal Court building
The purchase of the Scott Paper Plant

[ajldub]

Chretien also had plans for the Bank Street Building on the corner of Parliament building that would have been an awesome addition to the street along with the federal court building. There were also plans for some kind of Quebec City-style funicular from the end of Bank street to the river below; plans were available on the NCC website. He was serious about these projects as his legacy and they probably would have come to fruition had he not been squeezed out by adscam. Pity, really.

[ajldub]

Here we go:

http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16300-20444-20473-23557&lang=1

For some reason I thought it included an elevator kind of thing down to the river. Maybe it got downsized, or maybe I'm just dreaming again...

[O-Town Hockey]

Holmes unhappy with re-zoning to keep portrait gallery bid alive
Thursday, 24 April 2008
By Cynthia Vukets, centretownnewsonline.ca


Views : 109

Favoured : None

Published in : Centretown News, News

Andrew Ng, centretownnewsonline.ca
Site of the proposed Ashcroft development that would house the portrait gallery.A local developer has been given the go-ahead by City Council to build two high-rises in Centretown as part of a bid for the Portrait Gallery of Canada.
Council voted to allow Claridge Homes to construct 20- and 24-storey towers on the Metcalfe Street site it has proposed for the gallery.

Somerset Ward Coun. Diane Holmes says she is unhappy with council’s decision.

“I think it was very unfortunate that the city found ourselves in this position of being forced to go for a major re-zoning,” said Holmes. “I don’t like being held captive by development.”

The proposed towers would normally violate construction rules for the area at the corner of Metcalfe and Nepean streets, but council agreed to change the zoning for the site after the developer said it would pull its bid for the gallery. Claridge said earlier this month that without the residential complexes, it would be unable to get funding for the construction of the gallery.

“We’re happy with it,” said Neil Malhotra of Claridge Homes. “We’re happy that we’re able to move forward . . . with the re-zoning decision.”

Council voted to allow the highrises after Alta Vista Ward Coun. Peter Hume introduced an amendment that would guarantee community space is part of the development even if Claridge does not win the gallery bid. If Ottawa does not get the portrait gallery, the site will be used as a community centre, library or public health facility. Who will pay the operating costs and run the facility has not yet been discussed.

“One of the challenges was how to resolve this if the gallery doesn’t happen,” said Malhotra.

Hume’s amendment will ensure the site has some public use.

Council has been debating this project since the federal government announced the competition in November. Holmes and other councillors, including Capital Ward’s Clive Doucet, have said the competition is robbing the nation’s capital of its right to certain cultural infrastructure.

“I think it’s pretty obvious that it’s all about the money,” said Holmes.

Holmes said she recently learned Calgary is putting forward a bid supported by a $165- million cultural fund, with an extra $40 million from the Alberta’s government. Ottawa just does not have that kind of money for a bid, she said.

Some councillors and citizens have accused Claridge of pushing for the re-zoning knowing it will not win the bid for the gallery. Malhotra denied those claims, saying the project is important to his family and that they want to ensure Ottawa stays in the running.

The developer’s next step will be to submit a proposal for the site by mid-May. Public Works will collect bids from all competing cities and make a decision by October. No construction is permitted before then.

Holmes said she is disappointed with the entire process.

“This has been a very fast process allowing for very little public participation,” she said. “The people who live in that area will not be happy.”


I think this quote by Diane Holmes sums it up appropriately:
“I don’t like being held captive by development.”

She is not specifically anti-height or anti-infill, she is anti-development and it shows every single time she opens her mouth to the media. She will find something wrong with every project proposed within her ward and will fight tooth and nail to have these proposals rejected. I agree that there will be unhappy people in her ward considering the scale of this project (and there always will be with projects this size), but halting development (an appropriate one IMO) for the sake of a few dozen grumpy Centretownians is stupid, selfish, and obviously spawned from some kind of vendetta against developers.

[Mille Sabords]

I think this quote by Diane Holmes sums it up appropriately:
“I don’t like being held captive by development.”

She is not specifically anti-height or anti-infill, she is anti-development and it shows every single time she opens her mouth to the media. She will find something wrong with every project proposed within her ward and will fight tooth and nail to have these proposals rejected. I agree that there will be unhappy people in her ward considering the scale of this project (and there always will be with projects this size), but halting development (an appropriate one IMO) for the sake of a few dozen grumpy Centretownians is stupid, selfish, and obviously spawned from some kind of vendetta against developers.

You got it, O-Town. Hers is a leftover mentality from the 1970's, born in the days where people still thought it was OK to sprawl ever further out into the countryside to properly raise children and, therefore, there was no excuse to touch a shingle from a single Centretown house, be it a Victorian gem or a clap-board slum.

Things have become much more complex and, while the City needs to ensure it preserves its built heritage, it also needs to repopulate the existing urban areas, and redevelop parcels of land that lend themselves to redevelopment and would not be a loss of precious heritage. A blanket rule can no longer apply, and yet many of the grumpy old Centretowners still act as if it's The Rule or The Highway, and Diane Holmes is their voice.

Hopefully, clearer minds will prevail soon. People do get more rigid with age, and that's what we see in Centretown - the old hippie neighbourhoodniks from the 70's are now old and grumpy, and unable (or unwilling) to understand the city's needs of today.

[kwoldtimer]

That Centretown News article was interesting - I wonder whether at the end of the day, Claridge and the City of Ottawa haven't set in motion what will end up being a new downtown Library? Shame if it's not the Portrait Gallery in the podium, but on the other hand, Ottawa will never get a new Library if the usual conditions prevail.

[citizen j]

^That would best be put in writing in the form of an understanding between the city and the developer -- i.e., in the event that the portrait gallery be awarded to another city, the space be dedicated to a new public library (or a concert hall?). The current wording is way too vague. The obvious question being, is it large enough?

[Deez]

That Centretown News article was interesting - I wonder whether at the end of the day, Claridge and the City of Ottawa haven't set in motion what will end up being a new downtown Library? Shame if it's not the Portrait Gallery in the podium, but on the other hand, Ottawa will never get a new Library if the usual conditions prevail.

I would not want to see the new Library end up as part of a larger tower complex again. The main branch of a city's library should be a standalone and standout building.

[m0nkyman]

^ Why? I'm OK with a library in a larger building provided that the library part is designed with some eye to the future, and has a streetscape that contributes to vibrancy. Sure it's nice to have yet another monumental building to take pictures of, but I'm more interested in getting eyes on the street in downtown Ottawa than having another photogenic building that is used only 9-5 and then is dead for the rest of the time.

[clynnog]

I think this quote by Diane Holmes sums it up appropriately:
“I don’t like being held captive by development.”

She is not specifically anti-height or anti-infill, she is anti-development and it shows every single time she opens her mouth to the media. She will find something wrong with every project proposed within her ward and will fight tooth and nail to have these proposals rejected.


She and Legendre appear to be always sneering at and, in general, are very suspicious of most if not all private sector developments. She fails to realize or comprehend that most if not all growth and re-investment in the City is going to come from private money and like it or not, private investment don't want all of the rules dictated to them carte blanche. To me, she is like a back seat driver, forever criticizing yet never stepping up to the plate and trying to stick handle a project herself.

Just my tuppence worth.

[kwoldtimer]

I would not want to see the new Library end up as part of a larger tower complex again. The main branch of a city's library should be a standalone and standout building.

I don't disagree with you - I was just musing. In any event, citizen j is probably right in wondering whether the podium would be big enough for a library.

In the meantime, I'll keep fingers crossed for a Centretown that includes a National Portrait Gallery, a new concert hall and a wonderful new Central Library. Now, wouldn't that be something to cheer(s) about!:cheers:

[Deez]

^ Why? I'm OK with a library in a larger building provided that the library part is designed with some eye to the future, and has a streetscape that contributes to vibrancy. Sure it's nice to have yet another monumental building to take pictures of, but I'm more interested in getting eyes on the street in downtown Ottawa than having another photogenic building that is used only 9-5 and then is dead for the rest of the time.

It's a visibility issue. I would wager 90% of tourists that walk by the library don't realize they've walked past Ottawa's main branch. For this type of facility, you want something that is easily identifiable by locals and tourists alike. This is facilitated by a standalone building.

Also, you don't have to throw a condo tower on top of a library to get use out of it outside business hours. It's more a question of what kind of land use surrounds the building, ie. what generators of trips are around the library. The current location is surrounded by office towers that see no life outside of working hours. Ideally, I would like to see the library in a location that exposes it to a healthy mix of residential, retail and commercial land uses.

[Mille Sabords]

It's a visibility issue. I would wager 90% of tourists that walk by the library don't realize they've walked past Ottawa's main branch. For this type of facility, you want something that is easily identifiable by locals and tourists alike. This is facilitated by a standalone building.

Also, you don't have to throw a condo tower on top of a library to get use out of it outside business hours. It's more a question of what kind of land use surrounds the building, ie. what generators of trips are around the library. The current location is surrounded by office towers that see no life outside of working hours. Ideally, I would like to see the library in a location that exposes it to a healthy mix of residential, retail and commercial land uses.

I don't see one thing as precluding the other. A powerfully-designed library podium whose street presence is compelling in and of itself, can coexist with residential or office towers above the podium which make their own design statement as part of the city skyline.

[bradnixon]

It's a visibility issue. I would wager 90% of tourists that walk by the library don't realize they've walked past Ottawa's main branch. For this type of facility, you want something that is easily identifiable by locals and tourists alike. This is facilitated by a standalone building.

Also, you don't have to throw a condo tower on top of a library to get use out of it outside business hours. It's more a question of what kind of land use surrounds the building, ie. what generators of trips are around the library. The current location is surrounded by office towers that see no life outside of working hours. Ideally, I would like to see the library in a location that exposes it to a healthy mix of residential, retail and commercial land uses.

Both of those points are why I think the old union station would be a perfect new central library on many levels: beautiful, recognizable building, and a perfect location as it "bridges" the CBD to the west with the market precinct to the east.

Sure, it would be more expensive to renovate this building than to build something in the middle of nowhere from scratch, but it would be worth it. There would even be a P3 opportunity for adding retail, restaurants and parking.

[kwoldtimer]

Both of those points are why I think the old union station would be a perfect new central library on many levels: beautiful, recognizable building, and a perfect location as it "bridges" the CBD to the west with the market precinct to the east.

Sure, it would be more expensive to renovate this building than to build something in the middle of nowhere from scratch, but it would be worth it. There would even be a P3 opportunity for adding retail, restaurants and parking.

That's an interesting idea, I don't think I've seen it suggested before. The location would be superb, but I suspect the City could never pry it away from the Feds.

[Deez]

Although one example is far from a proof, I'll throw out these two pictures of similarly-themed institutions in NYC:

MOMA:
http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/moma/MOMA1.jpg

Guggenheim:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/flw/guggenheim02.jpg

You could never integrate something as striking as the Guggenheim into a tower. This is not to say I'm not in favour of housing the Portrait Gallery in a tower complex, but I believe the main branch of the library deserves a building of its own. I like the Union Station idea.

[ajldub]

I still think the best use for the old train station would be a main station for the O-train. It would be expensive, as most trains would have to arrive underground, but would be amazing if they pulled it off. There was a proposal a while back for the new library to go on Lebreton Flats. I think it was Phenix homes. The flats need more non-condo builds like the war museum in order to encourage the condos going up there, and I think the library would be a good addition to the future neighborhood. If you were to put it on the east end it would be close enough to downtown to still be the main branch.

[Mille Sabords]

I still think the best use for the old train station would be a main station for the O-train. It would be expensive, as most trains would have to arrive underground, but would be amazing if they pulled it off. There was a proposal a while back for the new library to go on Lebreton Flats. I think it was Phenix homes. The flats need more non-condo builds like the war museum in order to encourage the condos going up there, and I think the library would be a good addition to the future neighborhood. If you were to put it on the east end it would be close enough to downtown to still be the main branch.

I agree with you that the old Union Station should be returned to a rail function - subway and intercity, with a VIA tunnel under Colonel By.

As for the library, while I would see a Lebreton Branch as viable I would not make it the city's main branch, I would make it the branch for the new LeBreton plus the entire Chinatown-Little Italy-Nanny Goat Hill area. A good local branch, but not the city's main branch.

For me the Main Branch of the OPL would ideally go to the former National Archives building on Elgin Street, which has a large parking lot behind it on which to expand the complex with a municipal museum, art gallery, theatre, etc., and a condo tower above. A good alternate site would be the vacant lot next to Arts Court, where they are proposing that bizarre ship-container gallery. (The ship container gallery is an intriguing idea and I'd be curious to see how it pans out, but it's too small for that site and leaves too much green space around it. That lot should be filled out to give the street an edge)

[m0nkyman]

Ideally the entire podium of the World Exchange Plaza would be the main branch. That plaza outside, and it's location right downtown make it ideal. I know it'll never happen, but dare to dream. ;)

[Ryersonian]

I'm so suprised that so many of you think it would be appropriate for the new library to sit with a condo tower above it.

A central library should be a building that makes a statement and sits like a jewel on its own.

Think of a major city that you love (any in the world) and think of their main library....condo on top, I don't think so!

[d_jeffrey]

I'm so suprised that so many of you think it would be appropriate for the new library to sit with a condo tower above it.

A central library should be a building that makes a statement and sits like a jewel on its own.

Think of a major city that you love (any in the world) and think of their main library....condo on top, I don't think so!

Think of anything in world capitals or another major city, and it still wouldn't be in Ottawa. So yeah, people will take fool's gold, because there won't be any jewel to be found, and it's better a metal than nothing at all.

[waterloowarrior]

article by ken gray
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=1c75e372-25f7-4a47-8965-78bfb49f28e5

Ken Gray . When galleries go West
Ken Gray
The Ottawa Citizen
Friday, May 09, 2008

Fish swim, birds fly, bears do do-do in the woods, the Pope is Catholic and developers develop. It's what they do.

So we shouldn't be surprised that Neil Malhotra of Claridge Homes wanted some form of guarantee that he would be able to build his 20- and 24-storey twin-towers downtown whether or not Ottawa gets the coveted Portrait Gallery of Canada. After all, Mr. Malhotra builds things.

There's nothing wrong with erecting a tall building among tall buildings in the core. That's where we put our tall buildings. And the Claridge project has the added benefit of being stuffed with residences whose inhabitants will add life to downtown. Even without a gallery, the Claridge project is welcome.

Nevertheless, the bottom-floor proposed gallery looks more like an afterthought rather than a raison d'être. It has all the ambience of a Quickie Mart rather than a hall to display the great visages of Canada. At least it's not in a trailer park.

This is the level to which our national institutions have been devalued. Our neighbours to the south would build a great Smithsonian, Lincoln Memorial, Washington Monument - a structure of great grandeur. We put our portraits in a clean, well-lighted Seven-11. Oh well, there'll be Cheezies, chips and Slurpees.

The first incarnation of the portrait gallery was to be housed in the former U.S. embassy across Wellington Street from the Parliament Buildings. Many people carped about the modern design of the addition for the ornate building that looked rather like putting an odd hat on a dog. That said, the Wellington Street proposal was a vast improvement on the current public-private bidding process.

When you see how a national museum would be treated in Ottawa under the current bidding system put forth by the rugged individualists from the West on Parliament Hill, you almost hope Ottawa doesn't get the gallery.

Not when you compare it to the impressive Canadian War Museum or the National Gallery of Canada. Those structures are how you treat institutions of national importance.

In light of the Quickie Mart incarnation, Ottawa is unlikely to get the new gallery. Furthermore, Edmonton has put together a serviceable bid for the project. That city has set aside a location in good part of town that would be about half the size of the National Gallery of Canada. It would have a climate-controlled basement in which to store the portraits. In addition, the Alberta government has offered $40 million to the winning city to aid in construction. And when you look at the pedigree of the prime minister, Alberta is the likely location of the gallery with Edmonton's bid better than Calgary's.

So the early line favours Edmonton. After all, the prime minister didn't kill the Wellington Street gallery with the idea of giving it to Ottawa. As well, he structured a bidding process, dependent on private industry, that placed the private-sector-starved national capital at a disadvantage.

The gallery would normally be the purview of Ottawa - you know, musty paintings of the Duke of Somewhere, Governor General Something or Other.

But the most recent acquired collections in the spirit of Western culture at the Edmonton portrait gallery/P3 livery stable would be so un-Ottawa: Environment Minister John Baird in black-light poster; Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon finger-painted; and the prime minister himself, Stephen Harper, on velvet or whatever medium is playing well in Fort McMurray these days. Doubtless, they would all look good in the Elvis wing, certain to be the most popular exhibit in the Edmonton gallery besides the poker-playing dogs. Those cute little pooches always knock 'em dead with the dice-on-the-rearview-mirror set. Found art to be sure.

Meanwhile a serious portrait gallery would be a wonderful addition to Ottawa's tourism industry. Ironically, expensive oil, the commodity fuelling the financing of the western bids, is likely to reduce car tourism to Ottawa.

Furthermore, Alberta, with this oil revenue, doesn't need the economic boost of the portrait gallery.

Alberta has the oil and wants our tourism industry, too. During an Ontario economic downturn no less. Instead, I suggest a trade with the big-time wheeler-dealers out West. You want our tourism industry? Then we get your oil. Straight up. Deal?

Ottawa isn't likely to get the national portrait gallery but we could have an international one. The Claridge deal stipulates that the space under the two downtown towers should be used as some sort of arts space.

Might that be a perfect spot to honour one of the finest portrait photographers of the last century? And an Ottawan no less. A perfect use for the Claridge space would be to display the works of internationally acclaimed Yousuf Karsh. Such a portrait gallery would be a significant draw for the tourism industry. And perhaps there would be room for some of his photographer brother Malak's icons of the national capital region.

The works of Yousuf Karsh would be the basis of a portrait gallery, not of national, but world renown.

Ken Gray is the city editorial page editor and a Citizen editorial board member. His column runs on Fridays.
E-mail: kgray@thecitizen.canwest.com

© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

[jeremy_haak]

article by ken gray
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=1c75e372-25f7-4a47-8965-78bfb49f28e5



I like that idea. The Karsh museum.

[kwoldtimer]

Think of anything in world capitals or another major city, and it still wouldn't be in Ottawa. So yeah, people will take fool's gold, because there won't be any jewel to be found, and it's better a metal than nothing at all.

And being Ottawa, hell will freeze over before the powers at City Hall get their act together to build an new central library. Given that reality, the podium idea seems better than nothing.

[ajldub]

We need the Senate to send the portrait gallery bill to the house fast, before the porkbarrelling begins to get too much traction.

[harls]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2ae0a804-c8c1-4095-9142-7f6e1f75a667


Ottawa MP plans rally Friday for Portrait Gallery

The Ottawa Citizen

Published: Monday, May 12, 2008

So, how much does Ottawa want to be the home for the Portrait Gallery of Canada?

Ottawa NDP MP Paul Dewar wants residents to show their support by attending a noontime rally Friday on Wellington Street, near the National Capital Commission tourist bureau, across from the Parliament Buildings.

Friday is the deadline for cities to submit proposals to the federal government to locate the gallery in their community.

Submissions are expected from Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton.

Ottawa photographer Paul Couvrette will create a "portrait" of the demonstrators and donate it to the gallery.


© The Ottawa Citizen 2008

[Aylmer]

I non't have school, I'll be there!

:)

[m0nkyman]

Look for a tall guy with a shaved head and a goatee with some grey in it. I'll be there.

[Mille Sabords]

I just might see y'all there too.