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

[rocketphish]

24 Sussex reno likely millions more than $10M estimate

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 28, 2015 | Last Updated: October 28, 2015 1:35 PM EST

http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2015/09/undated-undated-handout-photo-of-exterior-of-24-sussex-dr.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all&w=700

The cost of fixing up 24 Sussex Dr. today is almost certainly higher than the $10-million estimate made by the National Capital Commission in 2008, experts say — possibly millions more.

“All of your inflationary numbers would need to be plugged into that,” said Mark Brandt, senior conservation architect and urbanist at MTBA Associates Inc.

Construction costs have risen by about 15 per cent since 2008, pushing the original estimate up by at least $1.5 million.

As well, there’s a “high likelihood” that the delay in performing work deemed urgent in 2008 by then-auditor-general Sheila Fraser has caused further degradation to the building, Brandt said. “There’s an increasing scale of degradation the longer you go.”

Moreover, the 2008 estimate did not include any security upgrades — something likely to be a high priority in the aftermath of last year’s attack on Parliament Hill.

Those “unbelievable” security needs are very costly, Brandt said. “I would expect they would now have to be added to the overall cost.”

Former senator Hugh Segal, now master of Massey College in Toronto, said the house’s plumbing and electrical systems “are bordering on the unsafe.

“I think everybody’s of the view, including the most penurious on the right wing, that this is the chance for the NCC to get it in shipshape,” Segal said.

The future of 24 Sussex became a hot topic after prime minister-designate Justin Trudeau’s mother, Margaret, said last week her son’s family would not move into the official residence until it was repaired.

Then on Monday, the NCC announced that Trudeau and his family will live in Rideau Cottage, on the grounds of Rideau Hall, until he can be briefed about the options for renovations at 24 Sussex.

According to a report in the Huffington Post, one option developed by the NCC would transform 24 Sussex into a working residence, similar to the White House, with offices for staff from the prime minister’s office and privy council office. That would cost $150 million, the website reported.

The NCC wouldn’t comment on that report Tuesday. But the commission’s advisory committee on official residences brainstormed ideas for 24 Sussex and other official residences last year, and the idea of a “White House North” wasn’t among them.

And no one approached by the Citizen — including Segal and Derek Burney, both former chiefs of staff to Brian Mulroney — had ever heard of a White House North plan.

Segal said there was some discussion — including during Stephen Harper’s time as prime minister — about transforming the National Research Council’s headquarters at 100 Sussex Dr. into a combination official residence and office for the prime minister’s staff.

But the idea never went anywhere largely because that sort of arrangement was seen as too presidential, he said.

Any attempt to turn 24 Sussex into a northern White House would provoke “some very strong resistance from heritage people,” said Ken Elder, a retired conservation architect and board member at Heritage Ottawa.

“That’s not going to happen,” he said. “There’s too much significance to the building.”

Burney, a former Canadian ambassador to the United States, said a good argument could be made for demolishing the current building and “starting anew.

“Think of our spectacular embassies in Washington and Tokyo, both designed by Canadian architects, not Public Works,” he said in an email.

“The only time for a bold initiative that serves the future of Canada, not always the past is, in my view, right now. Give one smart person the task and get on with it.”

Also Tuesday, the Sierra Club Canada Foundation called on Trudeau to announce that 24 Sussex would be a “net zero” heritage retrofit. Net zero means the building would produce as much energy as it consumes by 2050 or sooner.

“Think of the lasting, iconic impact of a heritage retrofit done right, a building that has great meaning in Canada’s history and could become an emblem for the country’s low-carbon future,” the group said in proposing its “audacious plan.”

dbutler@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/ButlerDon

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/cost-of-24-sussex-reno-likely-millions-more-than-10m-estimate

[rocketphish]

Prospect of fixing up or tearing down 24 Sussex captivates renovation expert

Terry Pedwell, The Canadian Press 10.30.2015

OTTAWA - Be it renovated or razed, the resurrection of 24 Sussex Drive should be documented as a showcase of Canadian history and innovation, says an expert in public portrayals of what — and what not — to do with older home projects.

Ever since Justin Trudeau confirmed that he's giving the prime minister's official residence a wide berth, Bryan Baeumler has received several inquiries about whether he'd tackle a reno job at Canada's most famous address.

Baeumler, host of a battery of HGTV renovation shows — "Disaster DIY," "House of Bryan," "Leave it to Bryan" and "Canada's Handyman Challenge" — and president of Baeumler Quality Construction in Oakville, Ont., said he would jump at the chance to take on the challenge if he worked in the national capital area.

"There's lots of great, qualified local (Ottawa) construction companies that can handle it, but of course — what a project!" Baeumler said in response to one query on his Twitter account.

There have been a few suggestions, most of them tongue-in-cheek, that the project be made into a reality TV series. For Baeumler, the notion immediately raises questions about historical integrity, security and red tape.

After all, 24 Sussex Drive is effectively owned by taxpayers, managed by the National Capital Commission, guarded by the RCMP and holds a historical signifigance that cannot be ignored.

"I'm not sure what the tangled web of restrictions and red tape might be," he said. "There'd be quite a quagmire of duelling opinions."

But it's not the first time Baeumler has been asked about the possibility.

A couple years ago, he sat down to dinner with a friend who lived at 24 Sussex in his early years — Ben Mulroney, son of former prime minister Brian Mulroney — and tossed around ideas about creating a TV show around renovations to the drafty old house, he said.

Another celebrity home renovator added his voice to the debate Friday.

Mike Holmes, star of the reality show "Holmes on Homes," told his Facebook followers he'd be prepared to get involved.

"I've read all your posts about the problems with 24 Sussex Drive and that Justin Trudeau won't be moving in," Holmes wrote. "I do know the best renovator in Ottawa that would be happy to help. Say the word and we'll grab our tools!"

There would be some benefits of having reality TV producers step in, including taming the cost of the project, which has been estimated to be at least $10 million — a seven-year-old dollar figure that's likely higher now.

It could also generate publicity for companies that would be involved.

"A show would be interesting. It would give people in Canada, I think, more of a sense of ownership of the property if they got to see it — and it would certainly keep the process a little more transparent," Baeumler said.

"I think it'd be a great opportunity for Canadian corporations that supply products sourced and manufactured in Canada to showcase them. There'd certainly be sponsorship opportunities."

The NCC said it could not provide any information in response to requests for an interview.

A spokesman for Trudeau would only say that the prime minister-designate has not decided how to proceed with the property, other than determining that he, his wife Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau, and their three children won't move in after Wednesday's swearing-in ceremony.

"Mr. Trudeau will be making decisions once he has been fully briefed by officials," said press secretary Cameron Ahmad. "Until then, his family will be living at Rideau Cottage" — a residence on the grounds of Rideau Hall, the home of Canada's Governor General.

There's been no shortage of opinions about what to do with the property.

Maureen McTeer, the wife of former prime minister Joe Clark and herself a former 24 Sussex resident, told CBC Radio this week that the home should be torn down and replaced with a new structure.

The building is more than just a house, said McTeer — it represents a Canadian idea.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his family lived at 24 Sussex Drive since 2006, despite an auditor general's report in 2008 that detailed its state of disrepair.

The report highlighted a number of problems, including cracked windows and problems with the plumbing and electrical systems, and estimated the cost of renovating the building at $10 million.

That price tag is now likely $15 million or higher, depending on what contractors are liable to find lurking behind the walls, said Baeumler.

No matter how the project unfolds, there should be publicity around it to give Canadians more of a reason to see it as an iconic symbol, he added.

"I think that would help to elevate the status maybe and make Canadians a little more proud of our democracy and our system and our infrastructure," he said.

"I think it's an opportunity to really create an incredible symbol and a legacy and set an example for our kids and the rest of the world that you have to take care of your own house, literally and figuratively."

Follow @tpedwell on Twitter

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/entertainment/prospect+fixing+tearing+down+sussex+captivates+renovation+expert/11483742/story.html

[rocketphish]

24 Sussex: What a totally sustainable reno should look like

The official prime minister’s residence, in disrepair for decades, is a money pit (estimated annual energy costs: $70,000) – not to mention a throwback to the days of inefficient design. John Lorinc asks the experts in heritage and sustainable design for their ideas

JOHN LORINC

The Globe and Mail Last updated: Wednesday, Nov. 04, 2015 9:51AM EST

Unlike the vast majority of families who move into new digs, Justin Trudeau and his wife, Sophie Grégoire, almost certainly didn’t get a home inspection in anticipation of taking possession of the house that comes with the job.

But the prime-minister-designate, who will be sworn in Wednesday, is already receiving all sorts of advice about what to do about 24 Sussex Dr., the stately but long-neglected 1867 mansion that will soon become his home (again).

The environmentally conscious Mr. Trudeau is poised to take a large delegation of premiers to the Paris climate conference, and some observers are urging him not to think of 24 Sussex just as a notorious fixer-upper, but also as something of a showcase for the Liberal government’s new-found commitment to sustainability.

According to Toronto architect Brigitte Shim, 24 Sussex plays a powerful symbolic role. “We can’t just see it as a house. It’s more than real estate.”

So in the spirit of a thousand home-improvement shows, The Globe and Mail canvassed experts in heritage and sustainable design for their ideas. There was no shortage of suggestions – everything from renewable-energy retrofits to fresh ways of thinking about the building’s cultural sustainability and its social mandate. And also this: Justin, Sophie, we love your kids, but lose the lawn. There are far greener ways to landscape than with Kentucky bluegrass.

Energy

According to some reports, 24 Sussex’s annual energy bill is almost $70,000 – a staggering sum that suggests the building is leaking a prodigious amount of heat and cooling, probably because of poor or non-existent insulation and single-pane windows.

Paul Dowsett, principal architect at Sustainable.to, a Toronto firm that specializes in sustainable renovations of heritage buildings, says the way to sharply lower that cost is to take a 3R (reduce, reuse, recycle) approach to energy retrofits. The firm undertook a similar project on the Daniels Residence, a majestic 9,000-square-foot art-deco home built for former Maple Leafs owner Conn Smythe, which, by the time Dowsett got to it, had similar problems, including windows that barely closed. “They weren’t doing anything but keeping out the large animals,” he recalls.

After completing a detailed computer analysis of how heat, moisture and air move through the walls, Dowsett’s firm looks at staged interventions, starting with replacing windows, taking advantage of natural solar heating and cross-ventilation opportunities, and deploying insulation developed by Roxul, a Danish firm with a plant in Milton, Ont., that transforms waste from Hamilton steel mills into a cutting-edge fibre-based mineral insulation product that can also be disposed of easily when a building is eventually torn down.

Architect and Treehugger (an environmental blog) contributor Lloyd Alter, who teaches sustainable design at Ryerson University, points out that some ultrahigh-rated foam-insulation products actually trap moisture in some homes, thus undermining masonry walls.

The goal, before investing in any cutting-edge technology from insulation to heating systems, is to drive down energy costs. “There are always opportunities to use nature’s energy in a passive way,” Dowsett says. “Only after we reduce energy demand do we start to look at the technology, which is the most expensive aspect.”

The building at 24 Sussex presents a range of opportunities for innovative energy and heating systems, according to Alter and Dowsett, including geothermal technology and the use of water-source heat pumps, which capture and reuse heat energy cast off from other mechanical systems, or even the installation of pumps powered by the Ottawa River.

The Trudeaus could deploy solar panels on flat portions of the roof, although Dowsett notes that there are examples in Europe where designers have created sculptural solar-energy panels that can be installed on the grounds. “That would be a real statement if it was planted in the front yard,” he says.

There is a broad consensus that 24 Sussex could be a green showcase from top to bottom. “It could be a real model of how you do a green sustainable renovation of an old building,” Alter says. “We have thousands of them that need to be done.”

Any restoration should meet the LEED Platinum standard for sustainability, says Marianne McKenna, founding partner of KPMB Architects. “It would be easy to achieve, so why not?”

Heritage

As Shim, a principal with Shim-Sutcliffe Architects, sees it, a new-look 24 Sussex should also be a model of cultural sustainability. “It has been loved and appreciated and it’s done its time. We need to look after it and we shouldn’t tear it down.”

She says any rethink of the residence, situated in a dramatic spot on a cliff overlooking the Ottawa River, should incorporate the gritty, ruggedness of its location, grounds and antecedents. The house, after all, was originally built by Joseph Currier, a Vermont-born lumber baron, so its history is hardwired into Canada’s industrial heritage.

Once the energy, air-circulation and insulation issues are sorted out, the interiors can be opened up to make the house more suitable for a prime minister and visiting dignitaries. According to McKenna, the restoration must begin by carefully documenting the heritage features and then stripping the interior back to the studs while preserving the historic elements, such as mouldings and key pieces of furniture. Rooms can be opened up, with an eye to improving flow.

“It takes a very skillful hand and it should be done properly,” she says, describing such a project as “a Rubik’s Cube.”

Any additions, however, must reflect contemporary architecture, not ersatz heritage style. There are many examples of how old and new are combined in elegant and seamless ways, such as the Daniels Residence, which was retrofitted with sleek glass and steel additions or KPMB’s Telus Centre, a modern Toronto concert hall that extends off the back of the Royal Conservatory of Music, a Gothic 1880s brick building that originally operated as a Baptist college.

Shim, whose firm specializes in modernist residential projects, adds that the interior could be positioned as a showcase for Canadian art, contemporary design and furniture, in the way that Jackie Kennedy revamped the White House.

Grounds

The Globe’s design team identified other opportunities to incorporate sustainable elements into the rethink of this property – beyond the footprint of the house itself.

Nicholas Discenza, an architectural designer for Sustainable.to, says the Trudeaus could begin by planting native species that do not require watering or pesticides and can withstand both the capital’s harsh winters and its arid summers.

Meanwhile, rainwater runoff from the roof can be captured and stored in underground cisterns until it is needed to water plants. But not the lush green lawn, Dowsett adds firmly. “No grass. I would put in a native ground cover.”

But as McKenna says, “Put people first. Sustainability should be the undergarment, the foundation. Make it a house that fits” – not just the prime minister and his or her family, but the way all Canadian homes should and could work in the future.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/design/24-sussex-what-a-totally-sustainable-and-statement-making-reno-should-looklike/article27095732/

[rocketphish]

24 Sussex is a national treasure that should be restored, not demolished

BENJAMIN SHINEWALD
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2015 3:18PM EST | Last updated Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2015 4:16PM EST

Benjamin Shinewald is the president and CEO of the Building Owners and Managers Association of Canada.

Everyone agrees that 24 Sussex Drive is a shambles, but no one agrees on what should be done with the place. From selling it to demolishing it, renovating it to rebuilding it, the ideas circulating speak to widespread public illiteracy with respect to the most basic elements of property management.

Consider how we got here. For decades, it has become an article of faith for Canadian prime ministers to brag about how cheap they were when it came to the official residence. Prime minister after prime minister refused to maintain, much less invest in, the mansion also known by its Welsh name, Gorffwysfa.

The results are as predictable as they are embarrassing. Canada’s most famous residence is filled with knob-and-tube wiring, largely inaccessible to the disabled and full of asbestos. Who can blame our new Prime Minister – particularly given his young children – for choosing to live across the street at Rideau Cottage, a residence that at least has fire sprinklers? Would you rent a home in such a sorry state?

But the truth is, we all went along for the ride. Our past prime ministers’ thrifty messaging resonated with a public eager to see politicians pinching public pennies. At some point, we taxpayers began taking a perverse pride in what might be the most neglected official residence on the planet.

And then – surprise! – there was a sudden cost to our willful blindness. Forgoing basic preventive maintenance and incremental investment caught up with us, ballooning into expensive repair.

The Auditor-General even sounded alarm bells, warning that the residence was “showing signs of fatigue and wear, and require(s) extensive repair work.” The estimated costs exceeded the property’s underlying value, and were nudging into eight figures – and that was in 2008.

Making matters worse, 24 Sussex Drive’s environmental impact is disgraceful. In an era when Canadian property management firms are leading the world in certifying the sustainability of existing buildings, our prime ministers were living in an energy hog, with plastic sheets stapled to window frames in winter and multiple air conditioning units replacing them in summer.

This is nuts. Any asset must be maintained, and a valuable asset like 24 Sussex Drive should be treasured.

Worse still, some are now advancing the ridiculous notion that the historic residence should be torn down and replaced with a new, ostensibly super-green facility.

But this approach profoundly misunderstands what green buildings are, and what they are not.

Many people mistakenly equate green buildings with the shiny, dazzling towers rising across our largest cities. And while it is true that these buildings are generally designed to be green, a great number of them fail to perform as promised. This is because the armies of green building designers overwhelmingly neglect to consider whether end-use building operators will be able to operate the structures sustainably.

In other words, buildings are not static entities with fixed environmental profiles. Rather, they are highly complex, IT-driven mini-ecosystems, where property managers’ decisions affect GHG emissions, water use intensity and indoor air quality far more than architects’ plans.

Moreover, as many studies have shown, the greenest buildings are the ones already built. New or old, big or small, gorgeous or ugly, certifying the environmental performance of existing buildings will always be the most cost-effective and environmentally efficient way to drive sustainability in the real estate sector. Demolition, waste disposal and rebuild all have environmental costs, too, but simple operating improvements on existing buildings can have a dramatic environmental impact.

The cumulative effect of this approach is remarkable. Since the number of existing buildings always far exceeds those being built, reducing the environmental profiles of existing buildings even just a little has a far greater benefit on our natural environment than the design of new structures.

It is time that we ceased the fetishization of the new and recognized the opportunity sitting right before our eyes: properly managing existing buildings drives financial and environmental benefits for owners, occupants and the broader public.

Which takes us back to 24 Sussex Drive. It is now in a state so deplorable that it needs multimillion dollar investment. Let’s do it. Let’s restore this jewel to its earlier grandeur, and let it be a symbol of environmental sustainability and of the proper maintenance of public infrastructure across our country.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/24-sussex-is-a-national-treasure-that-should-be-restored-not-demolished/article27192098/

[Harley613]

It's hardly a jewel...

[rocketphish]

Fix it or flatten it? The checkered past and uncertain future of 24 Sussex Drive

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: November 27, 2015 | Last Updated: November 27, 2015 8:35 PM EST

The prime minister’s unremarkable residence has never inspired widespread admiration. In fact, the current debate over its costly future mirrors closely its lukewarm inception as an official residence almost 70 years ago. But, writes Don Butler, most observers say we should keep it.

Before:
http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2015/11/24-sussex-drive-as-it-appeared-before-1950-before-it-was-re.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all&w=800

After:
http://wpmedia.ottawacitizen.com/2015/11/24-sussex-drive-as-it-appeared-after-being-renovated-in-1950.jpeg?quality=55&strip=all&w=800


If you like, you can blame Mackenzie King.

In his farewell speech to MPs in 1948, the retiring prime minister urged Parliament to provide an official residence for his successors. King had lived at Laurier House, which he owned, since 1923, and the cost to him of running and maintaining it had been heavy.

About a year later, on Sept. 30, 1949, C.D. Howe, the minister of trade and commerce, announced that “the Edwards property” would become the permanent home in Ottawa of Canada’s prime ministers.

“Canada is one of the few countries that does not have an official residence for its prime minister,” Howe told MPs. “Most of us realize the difficulty of a prime minister, coming to Ottawa for an uncertain tenure, in obtaining the type of house suitable to the high office he holds.”

The Edwards property, of course, was 24 Sussex Drive. In 1943, the government had served a notice of expropriation on its owner, Gordon Edwards, a former Ottawa MP, saying it wanted to acquire the property to guard against any possible commercialization of the Ottawa River shoreline.

That triggered a three-year legal battle that ended in 1946 with the Exchequer Court of Canada ordering the government to pay Edwards $140,000 for his house. Edwards was allowed to remain there on a monthly basis, but died later that year.

In truth, the government had no idea what to do with the house. Following Edwards’ death, it sat empty for a year, then was leased for two years to the Australian Embassy, which needed temporary office quarters.

By early 1949, however, government officials had identified 24 Sussex as the likely future prime ministerial official residence. After Canada’s leading role in the Second World War, a steady stream of important visitors was descending on Ottawa. Providing an official residence would allow the prime minister to receive them in surroundings more suitable than the Roxborough, the now-demolished apartment building at Elgin Street and Laurier Avenue where King’s successor, Louis St. Laurent, then lived.

There was little political controversy over the decision. Conservative Leader George Drew expressed satisfaction that the prime minister would “have the opportunity of carrying out his official duties and receiving official visitors in a manner more in keeping with Canada’s present position in world affairs.”

CCF Leader M.J. Coldwell said the house at 24 Sussex was “beautifully situated,” but suggested the government might consider building a new house, with modern conveniences, instead of fixing up the old place.

As it happened, the government was seriously considering precisely that. The Ottawa Journal reported in October 1949 that there was “a strong body of opinion” in cabinet that favoured tearing down the existing home. Howe and Lester Pearson, then external affairs minister, were said to be stressing the need for “something special,” given Canada’s post-war prestige on the world stage.

The editorialists at the Journal were “rather horrified” at the reported $750,000 cost of a new residence, however. What a prime minister requires, they opined, is a house that is “cozy, comfortable, reasonably secluded, with spacious rooms for receptions and dinner parties, but designed in the main for living, not for display.”

But what a prime minister would get for $750,000, the newspaper suggested, was a “cold, austere palace, a sort of art gallery with bedrooms attached” that those occupying it would detest.

In the end, the government opted to spend $410,000 to remodel the existing house, transforming its appearance in ways that made it almost unrecognizable.

St. Laurent took up residence in 1951, supposedly somewhat reluctantly, insisting on paying rent.

The rest of the story is familiar. Little has been spent on the house since then, and it has gradually decomposed to the point that alarmingly expensive repairs can no longer be avoided.

In some ways, the current discussion about 24 Sussex mirrors the debate in cabinet 66 years ago. Some, including prominent architects and at least one former resident, think it should be razed and replaced by a new building that would showcase Canadian architecture and stir national pride.

Others insist its destruction would constitute almost an act of vandalism, given the house’s connection to 10 prime ministers and Ottawa’s early timber trade. (Lumber baron Joseph Currier built it in 1868 as a wedding gift to his third wife, Hannah Wright.)

Ottawa architect Barry Padolsky, whose firm specializes in heritage conservation projects, thinks 24 Sussex should be treated as a model of conservation. “It would be a poor signal to the rest of the country if the government demolished a building that has been deemed to have historic value in its own capital.”

Historian Charlotte Gray would prefer to keep and repair the current house, as well. But, she adds, “I also know what terrible shape it’s in. If the NCC recommended that it was just too expensive to restore and should be pulled down and a really terrific architect-designed modern house built, I think that would also be acceptable.”

That would likely cost as much as or more than fixing it up, says Toon Dreessen, president of the Ontario Association of Architects. “There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the bones of that house that can’t be preserved and conserved and restored,” he says.

Dreessen says Justin Trudeau should use the renovation project “to demonstrate to the world that Canada cares about its history, about its buildings and about climate change. There is a cultural memory to that house that is more than just the sum of its parts. This house means something.”

Whatever is done, it’s important to do it right, says Dreessen, who fears the government could opt for half-measures to save money. Twenty-four Sussex “is what we say on the world stage about who we are as Canadians,” he says.

“This is our 10 Downing Street. This is our White House. We’d be shocked and dismayed if either one of those properties was radically altered or allowed to decay.”

While some foreign heads of government live in grand mansions or palaces, it’s hard to find anyone who thinks that sort of opulence is appropriate for Canada’s prime minister.

Certainly the current residence is far from palatial, says Gray. “Inside, it’s not a particularly beautiful house. When they did the 1950 renovation, they stripped out all the original moulding. The spaces aren’t that big, frankly. They’re also pretty bland.”

The fact that 24 Sussex was extensively modified in 1950 means those charting its course forward are less constrained by heritage preservation concerns, says Susan Ross, an assistant professor at Carleton University’s School of Canadian Studies.

“When a (heritage) building has high integrity,” Ross says, “people tend to be battling a bit for keeping every door knob. But if the integrity isn’t as high, people are usually more open-minded about what the opportunities are.”

According to Ross, 24 Sussex doesn’t have to be a preservation project. “You can have areas where there need to be changes, there need to be removals, there need to be additions.” The goal should be to strike a balance between new elements that express the present era and preserved parts that tell the story over time, she says.

A remodelled 24 Sussex could include modern additions or changes that reflect their own time, says Dreessen, who cites the contemporary glass lantern added to the Canadian Museum of Nature’s century-old building as a prime example of what’s possible.

Many also favour turning the current energy-hog residence into a green model of sustainability – an idea first suggested by the Sierra Club of Canada.

That’s also an argument against demolishing it, says Ross. “In almost every case or rehabilitation, you’re recouping your energy and other environmental costs much quickly than if you demolish and start over.”

One idea attracting little support is transforming 24 Sussex into a working residence, similar to the White House – an option reportedly developed by the NCC.

Padolsky calls that “absolutely horrifying. It would reinforce the power of a presidential prime minister. You might as well get rid of Parliament.”

dbutler@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/ButlerDon

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/what-sort-of-official-residence-is-right-for-our-pm

[acottawa]

White House analogies are weird. It is not the HQ of the executive branch, the pm is not the head of state and official guests do not stay there. It needs to be big enough for a private apartment for the pm family and to hold unofficial functions.

[rocketphish]

NCC's Kristmanson opens up about plans for 24 Sussex Drive

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: December 10, 2015 | Last Updated: December 10, 2015 12:59 PM EST

The National Capital Commission‘s chief executive says the country has a”once-in-a-generation opportunity” to create a suitable and sustainable residence for Canada’s prime ministers.

In an interview with the Citizen on Wednesday, Mark Kristmanson opened up for the first time about 24 Sussex Drive. He did not definitively rule out the possibility of tearing down and rebuilding the prime minister’s residence and spoke about the work the NCC is doing to develop a plan for the crumbling official residence.

For the project to succeed, Kristmanson said, the NCC needs to address ramped-up security concerns, the livability and functionality of the residence, the building’s environmental sustainability, and its status as a national symbol.

The NCC is also exploring ways of taking the cost of maintaining 24 Sussex “out of the political realm,” he said. “We’re learning from some other jurisdictions about what might be done so there’s less pressure on an incumbent prime minister regarding the residence.”

Successive prime ministers have been reluctant to authorize badly needed repairs to 24 Sussex, fearing the political optics of spending public money on their residence.

But Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to move his family temporarily into Rideau Cottage, on the grounds of Rideau Hall has “opened the door” to the debate about the official residence, generating an “almost unbelievable level of interest,” Kristmanson said.

“I’m having some quite thoughtful things sent in by heritage architects who’ve done similar projects. We’re viewing this as a kind of once-in-a-generation opportunity to address this.”

Much of the NCC’s effort so far has been directed at reviewing the many past NCC reports and studies on 24 Sussex and distilling them into briefing materials, he said. “That’s essentially where we are right now.” The NCC also needs to do some further studies of the property to address “gaps in our knowledge,” he said.

There’s no timetable yet for when the NCC will brief Trudeau on the options for 24 Sussex. But, Kristmanson said, “it’s a matter that’s taken pretty seriously. Once we’re at the ready point, this will go.”

Though confidentiality rules prevented Kristmanson from disclosing too much about the 24 Sussex project, he said NCC planning needs to take into account security issues, “which are considerable and at a level that was never really discussed in previous decades. This is a new reality we’re in, and a serious one.”

Another issue is that 24 Sussex “has not really worked well as a state residence,” Kristmanson said. “Its state areas are not separated from the private areas. It’s a difficult space for a prime minister and their family to operate in.”

Moreover, the current building is not environmentally sustainable, he said. “It just doesn’t meet even the basic tests, and it’s certainly not emblematic of where we think the built infrastructure of the country should be heading in terms of carbon emissions.”

That offers an opportunity to “measure the success of what’s done with respect to the environment,” Kristmanson said, giving hope to those who have argued the official residence should be a green model for the world.

The NCC must also bear in mind the status of 24 Sussex as a national symbol, a heritage site and a “place of meaning” for Canadians, he said.

Kristmanson did not directly respond when asked if he thought 24 Sussex should be rebuilt or torn down and replaced with a modern building — a debate that has been raging on social media and other public spaces.

However, he noted that 24 Sussex has the highest heritage classification for federal buildings. “It’s not an idle thing when you have these heritage classifications. Whatever decisions are taken have to be taken in that light.”

Though the Huffington Post reported that the NCC had developed a proposal for a $150-million working residence, with offices for staff from the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office, Kristmanson said he knew of no such plan. “I’m not aware that we’re working on a massive new complex of some kind.”

He said he didn’t yet know what the NCC will ultimately propose for 24 Sussex. “We’ll develop the best case that we can present. Obviously, it’s a hot issue,” he said.

“I’m hoping that Canadians will take a high-minded view of this — that we should have an appropriate residence for our prime minister. We should take a long-term view of this and, like other countries, invest in those residences so we put our best face forward.”

dbutler@ottawacitizen.com
twitter.com/ButlerDon

http://ottawacitizen.com/life/homes/nccs-kristmanson-opens-up-about-plans-for-24-sussex

[GernB]

Modernize it to whatever level is deemed appropriate. Restore it to its original appearance. The PM's executive office and state facilities should remain at the Langevin Block and Rideau Hall respectively, but some/office/meeting/reception areas should be added if necessary. But do it right the first time. No cheaping out. Spend what's needed.

[AuxTown]

The old design looks like an effing haunted house! Definitely restore it to this former glory.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa company pitches 'must-watch' TV series on remake of 24 Sussex Drive

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: January 7, 2016 | Last Updated: January 7, 2016 6:44 PM EST

If an Ottawa-based production company has its way, Canadians may someday gather around their television sets to watch “24 Sussex: The Series.”

Tim Alp, owner of Mountain Road Productions, pitched the idea of a multi-part series documenting the makeover of what he called “this once-grand official residence” to NCC chief executive Mark Kristmanson and board chair Russell Mills 10 days after the Liberals won the Oct. 19 election.

In emails to Kristmanson and Mills, released to the Citizen under access to information, Alp called the pending rehabilitation of 24 Sussex Drive “a unique event that should be chronicled and shared with all Canadians on national television.”

Declaring that the series “would become a ‘must-watch’ event for the nation,” Alp said he saw an opportunity “to showcase the best in green-building methods as many of the challenges of a 147-year-old, repeatedly modified stone structure are met and overcome.

“It is my ambition that, much like the UK made series covering the restoration of the Queen’s official residences, the resultant 24 Sussex series will be dignified and a gateway to our history while reinforcing for Canadians that this important residence has been a family home to many great Canadians over the years,” Alp’s email says.

Mills reacted with some enthusiasm to the pitch, telling Kristmanson that the series “could be a fascinating and educational show for the Canadian public.”

However, Mills also said he warned Alp that it would be “very difficult to get past the security factor. There are obviously many aspects of the work that could not be public.”

Security upgrades will be a major part of whatever ultimately happens at 24 Sussex. Indeed, in an Oct. 24, 2014, email to Kristmanson, Mills said the “largest part of the proposed renovations to 24 Sussex Drive involved increased security for the building.”

Kristmanson was lukewarm at best, telling Mills that he “would not encourage this type of coverage, at least at this point.”

In an email to Alp on Nov. 5, Kristmanson said it was too soon to say what shape the 24 Sussex project will take, adding: “I will keep this idea in mind as we go forward and may reach out to you at a later date.”

Founded in 1997, Mountain Road Productions has a special focus on home renovation shows, the latest being I Wrecked My House on HGTV Canada, which featured eccentric and unconventional approaches to home repair by Canada’s least handy homeowners.

In an interview Thursday, Alp said NCC officials have asked him for more details of his proposal. “I think there’s some initial interest, from what I’m hearing, but there’s so many factors at play here,” he said. “They have made no commitments on what it would be, who would do it and what it would look like.”

Alp said his company isn’t wedded to the series idea. “It could be as simple as a documentary. We’re open to anything they’d be willing to do there.”

He’s convinced Canadians would be fascinated. “It’s probably the most important home in the whole country. Just having a show with 24 Sussex in the title would bring an audience.”

Few Canadians ever get to see inside the official residence, he said. “It would be really sad to do something like this and not show it to the public. I think people would want to see how their money’s being spent.”

The material released by the NCC also included an Oct. 23, 2015, email from Mills to Kristmanson in which he said interest in the 24 Sussex story was “building by the minute” and reporters would soon be staking out Justin Trudeau “to find out where he plans to live and whether the necessary work at the residence will be done.

“We should get a decision as soon as possible,” Mills wrote, adding that Trudeau “does not want to appear indecisive on this issue.”

Three days later, the NCC announced that the new prime minister and his family would live temporarily in Rideau Cottage while the agency pondered what to do with 24 Sussex. It has not yet announced its plans for the official residence.

dbutler@postmedia.com
twitter.com/ButlerDon

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ottawa-company-pitches-must-watch-tv-series-on-remake-of-24-sussex-drive

[rocketphish]

Renovations could keep Trudeau family out of 24 Sussex for the PM's whole term

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: January 28, 2016 | Last Updated: January 28, 2016 5:57 PM EST

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may be unable to move into 24 Sussex Drive during his current four-year term in office, an email released to the Citizen under access to information suggests.

The email from Stephen Wallace, secretary to Gov. Gen. David Johnston, was sent to Mark Kristmanson, CEO of the National Capital Commission, on Oct. 27, 2015 — the day after the Prime Minister’s Office revealed that Trudeau and his family would live at Rideau Cottage “until further notice.”

Trudeau made the decision to allow the NCC to present a plan for desperately needed repairs to 24 Sussex, which successive prime ministers had refused to authorize. The cost of the repairs and security upgrades is expected to exceed $10 million.

In his email, Wallace informed Kristmanson that he’d had a “good discussion” with the governor general about the Trudeau family’s move to Rideau Cottage, a 148-year-old house on the grounds of Rideau Hall.

“I can confirm his full understanding and agreement with what we discussed, i.e., we would be very pleased to welcome the Trudeau family for whatever length of time is required for work on 24 Sussex,” Wallace wrote.

“The GG was well aware that some of the options could be in the three-to-four-year range, and would have no difficulty with the Trudeau family staying that long at Rideau Cottage,” his email says.

Should one of those options be chosen, Trudeau could be shut out of his official residence for his entire term as prime minister. By law, the next federal election must be held on Oct. 21, 2019.

Wallace’s email is the first clear indication of the possible timeline for 24 Sussex’s restoration or replacement. The NCC has had little to say since Kristmanson spoke about the project during an early December interview with the Citizen.

At that time, Kristmanson said the NCC was reviewing past reports on 24 Sussex and planning further studies to address “gaps in our knowledge,” and didn’t know when it would brief Trudeau on the options.

It’s unclear whether that has happened yet. Cameron Ahmad, Trudeau’s press secretary, said Thursday no decision on 24 Sussex has yet been taken, but wouldn’t “elaborate on the process at this time.”

In an email, Nicholas Galletti, the NCC’s director of strategic media, said it was premature to discuss any specifics.

“However, the NCC is ensuring that issues related to security, functionality, environmental sustainability, design excellence and heritage preservation are taken into consideration in our preparations.”

In his email to Kristmanson, Wallace — who had to move out of Rideau Cottage to make way for the Trudeaus — noted that the house is managed by the NCC, not Rideau Hall.

Because of that, he said, “We do not see any particular confusion with a prime minister taking up temporary residence, and in particular would not see that as an issue for the next governor general, given understandable project timelines for major work.” (Johnston’s term as governor general is scheduled to end in September 2017.)

Among the material released to Postmedia was an NCC document summarizing major capital improvements made to 24 Sussex between 2005 and 2015, as well as major rehabilitation requirements.

Since 2005, the NCC has repaired five chimneys, replaced five family room windows, enclosed two staircases with automatic doors to ensure safe egress in the event of a fire, removed hazardous materials, stabilized the escarpment behind and west of the property, and upgraded private areas on the third floor, including new hardwood floors, lighting, wall finishes and window coverings.

Elements still requiring significant upgrades include windows, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, plumbing and electrical systems, fire suppression, universal accessibility, service area functionality and landscaping.

As well, the RCMP “has expressed the desire to implement security enhancements throughout the buildings and grounds,” the document says. Doing this work, it says, would require “a significant period of uninterrupted on-site access.”

The NCC document also includes a summary of needed work at Harrington Lake, the prime minister’s country residence in the Gatineau Hills.

“To maintain this heritage asset, reduce energy consumption, improve indoor thermal comfort, lower pest control requirements and renew the life cycle for the building envelope,” the NCC recommends replacement of doors, windows and exterior walls, repointing chimneys, and improving drainage and attic ventilation and insulation.

As with 24 Sussex, a significant period of uninterrupted access is needed to complete the work, the NCC says, though “a phased implementation could be considered.”

dbutler@postmedia.com
twitter.com/ButlerDon

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/renovations-may-keep-trudeau-family-out-of-24-sussex-for-years

[Mugwumper]

They should just demolish it and build a new, green, efficient home to replace the current structure. The Rideau Centre got creative and retained the old facade of Ogilvy's while putting up a new building for the future Simon's department store. 24 Sussex could do something similar. Keep part of the old facade of the current building, then build a new place around that.

Retrofitting the current building will be like a sequel to "The Money Pit."

[rocketphish]

NCC draft plan backs renewal of PM's official residence at 24 Sussex

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: July 7, 2016 | Last Updated: July 7, 2016 6:00 AM EDT

Renewing and transforming 24 Sussex Drive is one of the “milestone projects” in the National Capital Commission‘s new 50-year draft Plan for Canada’s Capital.

The reference to 24 Sussex in the draft plan (http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/planning/plan-canadas-capital), to be made available Thursday on the NCC’s website, is the first public sign the Crown corporation favours repairing the crumbling 148-year-old official residence rather than building a modern new home for the prime minister, as some have advocated.

“Once completed, the residence will integrate modern security features to protect the prime minister and visiting dignitaries, and enhance the official state and private functionality of the residence, including universal accessibility,” the draft plan states. “It will preserve its unique heritage characteristics and improve the environmental sustainability aspects.”

The official residence has been vacant since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau opted last fall to live at Rideau Cottage, on the grounds of Rideau Hall, to allow for badly needed repairs to 24 Sussex, which are expected to cost well over $10 million.

While the draft plan leaves little doubt that the NCC favours repairing the existing residence, no final decision has yet been made about the future of 24 Sussex, said NCC spokesman Nicholas Galletti.

“This project, as well as all the other milestone projects, are included in the draft Plan for Canada’s Capital for public feedback and comment,” Galletti said.

Rehabilitating 24 Sussex is just one of 17 “big ideas” encompassing nearly 30 milestone projects in the draft plan, which is meant to shape the use of federal lands, buildings, parks, infrastructure and symbolic spaces in the capital from 2017 to Canada’s bicentennial in 2067.

Several of the projects are already well known or underway, including the redevelopment of LeBreton Flats, an illumination plan for the capital, the creation of waterfront parks along the north and south shores of the Ottawa River and the rejuvenation of Nepean Point.

Other ideas, such as a national portrait gallery and the regeneration of the capital’s urban forest, have been advocated by others, but receive the NCC’s endorsement in the draft plan.

Some of the milestone projects are either new or have received limited attention. They include:

• NCC support for a permanent Indigenous Welcome Centre on Victoria Island;
• A public site to celebrate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
• The renovation of Confederation Square, timed to the centennial of the National War Memorial in 2039;
• Support for the National Research Council’s goal of making 100 Sussex Dr. a science and innovation hub;
• Support for the establishment of a National Botanical Garden on the west side of the Rideau Canal;
• A new public park overlooking the Chaudière Falls;
• Reimagining Wellington Street’s public realm to create a “compelling and unified” sequence of public spaces;
• A new Gatineau Park Visitor Centre; and
• Completion of a continuous Greenbelt pathway system from Shirleys Bay in the west to Green’s Creek in the east.

In developing its list of signature projects, the NCC drew from 1,200 “big idea” suggestions submitted by 1,800 Canadians between December and February.

The most popular included renewing the urban forest, increasing access to the Ottawa River and shorelines, creating a national botanical garden, improving pathways and cycling infrastructure, providing more amenities and attractions, and establishing a national portrait gallery.

The proposed new plan is significant because the federal government controls and manages 11 per cent of the land in the National Capital Region. Over the plan’s anticipated 50-year lifespan, the population of the capital is expected to grow to two million or more from the current 1.23 million.

“It’s sort of the plan of all plans,” Galletti said. “It’s the guiding vision for the capital.”

The NCC’s other plans — for the downtown core, the Greenbelt, the urban lands and Gatineau Park — will have to conform to the principles it expresses.

In keeping with the NCC’s status as an arms-length Crown corporation, the new plan does not require cabinet approval. Once approved by the NCC’s board, likely early next year, it will replace the current 1999 plan, the most recent in a series of planning blueprints dating back to 1903.

The best known, the Gréber Plan in 1950, led to the creation of the Greenbelt, the expansion of Gatineau Park, the extension of the scenic parkway system, the building of recreational pathways and the relocation of railway tracks from the downtown core.

The milestone projects in the draft plan are still only proposals until the NCC’s board of governors votes to approve a new plan, likely early next year.

For the next month, the draft plan will remain on the NCC’s website to allow the public to read it and comment on it.

Some changes could be made as a result, but the NCC has been consulting widely with the public, government departments and municipalities for the past two or three years. “A lot of those conversations have influenced the plan as it was being developed,” Galletti said.

dbutler@postmedia.com
twitter.com/ButlerDon

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/ncc-draft-plan-backs-renewal-of-pms-official-residence-at-24-sussex

[rocketphish]

Estimated cost of 24 Sussex renos almost $38 million: documents
That includes close to $12 million for new annex building with pool

BJ Siekierski, iPolitics
Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016

Renovations to 24 Sussex that include the construction of a new annex building with private quarters and a pool are forecasted to cost close to $38 million, according to documents obtained by iPolitics.

The documents, which contain itemized breakdowns and estimates from as recently as February 2016 — primarily provided by Marshall & Murray Incorporated, development consultants, and Ottawa-based KWC Architects — suggest a preferred option that would transform the prime minister’s residence into something more like the White House.

The most recent estimate in the documents — from February 5, 2016 — breaks down the proposed renovation and construction into five categories — Site Services & General Civil Work, Demolition and Abatement, Main Building, Annex Building (including pool), and Grounds Rehabilitation — that collectively add up to $37,753,887,000.

Of those five categories, renovations to the main building are projected to cost the most, with $13.49M required to — among other things — completely replace the electrical system, replace all exterior windows and doors and build a new sunroom.

The second most expensive proposed outlay, however — at $11.99M — is the construction of a new building “adjoining the south side of the main house,” replacing a controversial pool house built for Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1975.

Built at a cost of around $200,000 at the time, according to the Globe and Mail — closer to $860,000 in 2016 dollars — the pool house’s construction was financed, in large part, by mostly anonymous private donors.

After demolishing the existing pool house for roughly $105,000, construction could begin on the approximately 7,500 square foot building that “would house the private quarters thereby freeing the existing residence to accommodate the state and support functions”, the documents say.

Emails on February 9 between Stephen Willis, executive director of Capital Planning at the National Capital Commission (NCC), and Stephen Robertson, a protect manager and architect at NCC, further establish the preference for that option.

“Do we know what it would cost to replace the pool building without any additional space being added?” Willis asks Robertson.

“With or without pool?” Robertson replies. “With pool,” Willis answers.

Both the PMO and NCC assured no decisions have been made.

“The NCC continues to work with its federal partners, including the RCMP, to develop a plan for the future of 24 Sussex Drive to ensure the government is able to make a prudent and informed decision,” NCC spokesperson Jean Wolf wrote in an emailed statement.

“This includes issues related to security, functionality, environmental sustainability, universal accessibility, and heritage preservation. Further information will be available in due course.”

“No decisions have been made regarding any proposals for renovations at 24 Sussex Drive. We will have more to say as the process moves along,” added PMO press secretary Andrée-Lyne Hallé.

Rather than moving into 24 Sussex after being elected in October 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family moved into Rideau Cottage on the Governor General’s grounds “until further notice”.

“The prime minister-designate will make decisions regarding 24 Sussex Drive once he has been fully briefed by officials,” a Liberal Party spokesperson told Huffington Post at the time.

In 2008, then Auditor General Sheila Fraser estimated that “completely rehabilitating 24 Sussex Drive would cost about $10 million and would require full access to the residence for a minimum of 12 to 15 months.”

“Delays are likely to result in further deterioration and higher costs,” Fraser said then.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/23/estimated-cost-of-24-sussex-renos-almost-38-million-documents/

[Mikeed]

Couple thoughts on that.

Firstly, I completely understand why Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and esp. Steven Harper didn't touch this file with a 10m stick, spending $10-38m on a private residence for the PM is a hard thing to sink political capital into.

On to more important insights...

Once again I come back to the opinion that we are way better demolishing the current residence, and building something from scratch. The building is not really that historically significant since it has only housed the PM since 1951, and has been abused for so many years. It is also largely over shadowed by the French embassy next door.

The biggest asset to 24 Sussex is it's location. What I would consider the best option is having a national design competition for a new 24 Sussex. A new 24 Sussex should acknowledge that reality that since the 1950s the PMO has drastically changed in function into a more executive office like the POTUS. This change will not be reversed, so any design of the new 24 Sussex- since we are prepared to spend almost $40 million dollars on this building - should be designed with as many functions of State as is appropriate. An Office annex should give the PM the ability to do state work from the residence and be connected remotely with the main PMO building, and other agencies. A "Situation Room" that would allow the PMO to function during crisis or moments of urgency from the residence would also be appropriate. The new residence should certainly be designed to be able to host a function as large as a First Ministers' Meeting and the subsequent Press requirements. In summary the Office and State functions should compliment but not replace the larger institutions we have for these- the PMO at Langevin Block and Rideau Hall. For $40 million dollars this would give the Federation more bang for it's buck, and would probably be easier to just start from scratch.

Having an open national design competition, with an open selection process, would put this into the eye of the public and make it engaging in away that could make it easier to stomach the costs. The idea of doing this and televising it is also a really brilliant idea for what should be consider a national home, that young people could potentially be motivated to get into statecraft and public service, allowing them to dream about possibly living in this home that should be designed to remind the resident about the dignity and duty the Office requires. A lot people with be cynical about the PM's residence and a waste of money on the 'elites', but I really think this reduces that to those who aren't already cynical beyond help lol

The new 24 Sussex should be designed so as to be open to the public for tours on July 1st and Doors Open Ottawa. 2 times a year is more then doable! Considering it is a functional office/residence having it open all the time is not advisable imo.

Other options should also be considered. Like moving the Official Residence to the grounds of Rideau Hall. This would allow a synergy between state functions/infrastructure on the grounds and allow for an integrated security plan for both head of state and head of government. Issues of possible competing jurisdictions/egos are noted here. But there is opportunity here, esp. to use the street frontage on Thomas St.

Margret Trudeau called it "The Crown jewel of the federal penitentiary system" at least in part due to the high fences and backed away presence of the building. I know security can be used to justify basically anything, the notion of moving the building so it can be more public and it's appearance does have it's merits. The grounds of Rideau Hall are already public, guarded by military Honour Guards and the RCMP. Moving 24 Sussex onto the grounds while giving it a public street frontage on a private section of the grounds brings with it opportunity. And visitors, esp. VIP visitors, could then meet the PM on the way towards the Head of State/GG or vice versa depending on what is proper protocol. Within a secure grounds.

There is also empty or largely empty lots across the street that could be combined, and the Canada and the World building (the new home to the Royal Geographical Society) would also have made an interesting base of a new 24 Sussex with amazing architectural feature of being built into the cliff next to a waterfall with amazing views of the city and river from the rooftop. A new facade and expansion would have gone a long way to building an amazing Official Residence for probably significantly less then $40 million.

Once again, I really do think the best option is to demolish the current lot and establish an open national design competition for a new structure that can house both the a functional small wing of the PMO, dignified State functions, the ability to host First Minister meetings & press and a private residence for the PM and their family. And televise the creation of this new Canadian icon.

I doubt this moment of nation building will be seized to it's fullest potential - as is tradition.

[Mikeed]

YouTube: RMR- Rick at 24 Sussex | Runtime: 5:26 (https://youtu.be/khys5Vvcn84)

You can see brief glimpses into 24 Sussex in Rick Mercer's visits with Paul Martin in 2005, including the awful garish leopard print staircase runner covering up a magnificent staircase. Installed by Brian Mulroney. When we do eventually create the new 24 Sussex- ether from scratch or renovation- we should remove from the PM the ability to modify the structure unilaterally.

You can understand why Jean Chrétien said 24 Sussex makes "Canada look like a bunch of cheap guys", which isn't off the mark really.

YouTube: RMR- Rick Renovates 24 Sussex | Runtime: 5:27 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEQeGJTwstY)

The House in furnished by the Crown Collection.

CPAC: Inside 24 Sussex - Home of Canada's Prime Minister - A tour with Laureen Harper | Runtime: 27:27 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgj7Ct4Q25o)

Rideau Hall - A Tour with the Johnstons | Runtime: 17:08 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7vV5H5WELU)

Rick Mercer at Rideau Hall | Runtime: 6:03 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIHCDgXUgyE)

As an aside:
I greatly appreciate the division in Canada between the Head of State and Head of Government, with the Head of State representing the non-partisan, above the fray of politics functions of State- the so called "dignified". Managing the Honours system, GG Awards of State, Commissions in the Military, and Canadian Heraldic Authority (Arms, Flags and Badges) And the Head of Government (whom holds really power through a mandate from the people) dealing with the divisive reality of politics and governance. Whatever you think of the Monarchy I think this a strength of Canadian governance.

[eemy]

I strongly disagree with making 24 Sussex an executive office. Keeping the PMO on the hill or at least adjacent to it jives with it being an arm of the legislative branch.

[Mikeed]

I strongly disagree with making 24 Sussex an executive office. Keeping the PMO on the hill or at least adjacent to it jives with it being an arm of the legislative branch.

You can't replace the functions of the PMO/Privy Council in the residence, but the reality of being able to perform basic head of government duties at times of crisis or the ability to teleconference into the wider government should again be consider if we're going to drop $40m on this.

Markets move 24 hours a day, Canadian troops are killed on the other side of the world at 4am local time. The PMO as it currently stands is a very new creation.

The PM requires office space in his home that can supplement the PMO/Privy Council, esp. considering the last two PM's have had young families that require a reasonable work/life balance.

I think it is entirely reasonable that the PM has remote access from his residence to the GOC (Government Operations Centre) the 24/7 national security and disaster response control room. This requires the creation of a secure IT/Office infrastructure. The October 22nd Shooter incident showed a pretty dysfunctional government response to a unfolding crisis.

Canada needs to continue to create institutions that allow it to exercise more independence on the world stage as a middle power, and having some kind of office from the residence that can be at least securely receive information from NORAD and the combined NATO intelligence network in relation to Canadian operations is also important.

So again, I think a small executive office, situation room/extension of the GOC, and a small meeting facility is important. As Harper did extensive working lunches at 24 Sussex. The Pm being able to have supper, get work done and still be close to his family is in the national interest imo.

This is an omnipresent job.

Edit: Personally I would probably also reorganize things so that the PM receives a senior military or RCMP officer as an Aide-de-Camp to function as the manager of this national security and communications office, and the overall in charge of the security of the PM and the residence, and to ensure that communication and protection of the head of government remains unobstructed in times of crisis or unexpected situations. Perhaps this would solve some of the glaring issues that have been noted recently in communication and order during these types of situations. And it would probably be best to have their office in the residence and possibly also reside on the grounds.

[acottawa]

I honestly don't think it is worth it. Most of the historical elements of the house were destroyed during the 1950s renovation. The house serves no public function and serves no state function. The PM needs a house which can be properly protected, has a comfortable private apartment, and some hospitality space for the PM to host private or informal meetings. Something like that could be built for a fraction of the cost.

[acottawa]

I strongly disagree with making 24 Sussex an executive office. Keeping the PMO on the hill or at least adjacent to it jives with it being an arm of the legislative branch.

It isn't an arm of the legislative branch. It is the secretariat for the PM, which is the executive branch.

[passwordisnt123]

If you already own the land, $40 million dollars can build you a pretty amazing custom-built mansion with all the highest end finishes to your heart's content.

I agree with what other people have said here. Knock the thing down and start fresh. The building has no historical significance beyond its address which wouldn't change anyways. It serves no state function. It's basically just a place to store the PM away for the night. If a $40 million mansion isn't enough for the PM, then we need to re-evaluate our priorities.

[Mikeed]

It isn't an arm of the legislative branch. It is the secretariat for the PM, which is the executive branch.

There is no separation in Canada between the executive branch and the legislative branch - there is in no way 3 separate branches of government in Canada. This is an imported Americanism that has even found its way into our school system.

The executive branch in Canada is Cabinet- which is a committee that sits in and is a member of the legislature. The PM (not mentioned in the Constitution in anyway) is the "first among equal"- at least in theory- that chairs this Committee of legislatures.

The PMO/Privy Council office has drastically expanded in recent years and represents the centralization of power in a nearly Presidential-like system. And has had distorting effects on Canadian government over the past couple decades. But it is here to stay.

There is an executive branch of government, but it is in no way independent from the legislature. As that would undermine the foundational principle of Parliamentary Supremacy. (It has been undermined by a number of events in the evolution of Canadian government, like the Charter)

Though I see now that you are be referring to the Privy Council / PMO bureaucracy that are members of the civil service which I part of the executive branch. This is just a pet peeve of mine seeing how it is often taught in Canadian public schools 'the three separate branches of government which interact between each other with checks and balances"- which is factually wrong.

What should be noted is the Privy Council is a constitutional body and is really the functional office of applying the decisions of executive branch of government and supporting Cabinet. It is the independent civil service. The PMO is a partisan office wholly within the body of the PM to do what he wishes with.

[passwordisnt123]

It isn't an arm of the legislative branch. It is the secretariat for the PM, which is the executive branch.

The PM is not technically the executive branch of government, even though he does exercise de facto control via his central role in the cabinet. Since the executive branch of Canada's government is the crown, the PM's role is mostly derived from constitutional convention and the PMO has absolutely no constitutional basis for its authority, it only has authority by convention.

Even cabinet isn't technically considered the executive since it just advises the crown on orders-in-council which, by convention, the crown always accepts but is technically under no constitutional obligation to do so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disallowance_and_reservation#In_Canada).

You may be thinking of the Privy Council Office (PCO) which is a committee of the Queen's Privy Council.

[kwoldtimer]

From the Parliament of Canada website:

In Canada, the executive branch of government comprises of the Crown (the Head of State, represented in Canada by the Governor General), the Prime Minister (the Head of Government) and the Cabinet. The executive is the branch of government that makes and implements the decisions required to maintain the rule of law and the well-being of Canadians. (my bold)

[passwordisnt123]

There is no separation in Canada between the executive branch and the legislative branch - there is in no way 3 separate branches of government in Canada. This is an imported Americanism that has even found its way into our school system.

The executive branch in Canada is Cabinet- which is a committee that sits in and is a member of the legislature. The PM (not mentioned in the Constitution in anyway) is the "first among equal"- at least in theory- that chairs this Committee of legislatures.

The PMO/Privy Council office has drastically expanded in recent years and represents the centralization of power in a nearly Presidential-like system. And has had distorting effects on Canadian government over the past couple decades. But it is here to stay.

There is an executive branch of government, but it is in no way independent from the legislature. As that would undermine the foundational principle of Parliamentary Supremacy. (It has been undermined by a number of events in the evolution of Canadian government, like the Charter)

Though I see now that you are be referring to the Privy Council / PMO bureaucracy that are members of the civil service which I part of the executive branch. This is just a pet peeve of mine seeing how it is often taught in Canadian public schools 'the three separate branches of government which interact between each other with checks and balances"- which is factually wrong.

Cabinet isn't technically the executive branch of Canada. Cabinet advises the executive (the crown) and, by convention, the crown always accepts Cabinet's advice. Full authority of disallowance and powers of reservation are still in effect in Canada (though they haven't been used since the 1920s) so the Crown is technically under no constitutional obligation to accept the advice of Cabinet, which is think is messed up personally but nothing I can do about that. We haven't gotten around to fixing that part of our constitution yet.

[passwordisnt123]

From the Parliament of Canada website:

In Canada, the executive branch of government comprises of the Crown (the Head of State, represented in Canada by the Governor General), the Prime Minister (the Head of Government) and the Cabinet. The executive is the branch of government that makes and implements the decisions required to maintain the rule of law and the well-being of Canadians. (my bold)

Yes. What's missing from that synopsis is the distinction between de facto and de jure. They're talking de facto. I'm talking de jure. I'll admit that I am being slightly cheeky here because I'm sneaking in a constitutional argument that so long as the crown's disallowance and reservation powers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disallowance_and_reservation#In_Canada) remain in effect in Canada (which they are), that there is an important distinction between the de facto executive and the de jure executive.

[Mikeed]

Even cabinet isn't technically considered the executive since it just advises the crown on orders-in-council which, by convention, the crown always accepts but is technically under no constitutional obligation to do so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disallowance_and_reservation#In_Canada).

I will say that the Crown is bound by duty to act in accordance to responsible government. Which is to say the power of the Crown must be exercised only by elected officials. Which in N.America dates back to first Nova Scotia in the 1848 and then the United Provinces of Canada later that year. Only in an emergency can the Monarch use it's Royal Prerogatives to act in the interest of the State and the people. When the BNA Act of 1867 was agreed the recognition of both of Crown being Sovereign and having "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" enshrining the British Bill of Rights and the whole bit of history in the UK over killing the King over the issue of his interpretation of 'divine right of King' and tilting government back to the idealized Anglo Saxon principle of "rule by consent" (circa like 500) by warrior Kings, during the Glorious Revolution and following Bill of Rights 1689:

> the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal

A 327 year old principle. Which in the political rhetoric of the day was largely spoken of as a similar restoration that the Magna Carta represented some nearly 500 years earlier when the Norman invasion was also seen in the following years to have severed the Anglo Saxon principle of rule by consent. Again, that was another idealized rhetoric, not 100% fact, but powerful none the less.

The Stuart Monarchs really liked the idea of "divine right of Kings" as seen in France, which resulted in their dethroning and one of them loosing his head. And eventually the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights. The "pretended power" which implies that the people, through Parliament, latching onto that mythic idea of the Anglo-Saxon Kings ruling by consent in the era of 500-1066, as Warrior Kings protecting the people from the Danes and Viking invasions. Kind of like how a Pirate ship was largely a democracy under the Captain in all matters but rules of engagement and war, I suppose.

In political terms, Canada is both a federal state and a parliamentary democracy. It is also a constitutional monarchy with a responsible system of government. Responsible governments are elected by the people and are accountable to their duly elected representatives. A cornerstone of our system lies in the principle that governments use power but never possess it; power remains vested in the Crown and is only “entrusted” to governments to use on behalf of the people. In this way, power resides with a non-partisan institution that is above the political give and take inherent in the daily operations of government in every democracy. Simply stated, in Canada as a constitutional monarchy, the government rules while the Crown reigns.

And the Crown in a large part gets its authority from the concept of time immemorial - it has always existed into the mists of time- ,rule by consent as represented by the warrior Kings of the Anglo-Saxons defending the nation-state above the fray of every day politics. (local shires) And representative of the social contract that one submits to authority of law and good governance, and the subjectivity requires duty to the State like paying taxes in exchange for being a citizenship of the commonwealth; or political union, and having his inalienable rights protected (by the Crown, not the PM). A lot of this stuff goes back to the Age of Enlightment thinkers, like Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke.

Disallowance and Reservation are powers in the Constitution that is only actionable by the Cabinet of the Federal Parliament (via responsible government), and have been recognized as no longer being constitutional powers that can be used by the Feds- in a kind of 'use it or loose it principle'.

EDIT:
Kind of a thing of interest to me. I really wonder what will happen when QE2 dies. Hopefully we develop into a Crowned Republic- as I see no reason why the Crown can't be personified by an elected or appointed official. Worse case will be a Presidential system where the PM assumes the powers of the GG. But this is way off the subject of this thread. Fun fact: the only part of our Constitution vetoed by Imperial Parliament was the name: Kingdom of Canada, was deemed provocative towards the States, and presumptuous- putting it on the same footing as the UK.

[passwordisnt123]

I will say that the Crown is bound by duty to act in accordance to responsible government. Which is to say the power of the Crown must be exercised only by elected officials. Which in N.America dates back to first Nova Scotia in the 1848 and then the United Provinces of Canada later that year. Only in an emergency can the Monarch use it's Royal Prerogatives to act in the interest of the State and the people. When the BNA Act of 1867 was agreed the recognition of both of Crown being Sovereign and having "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom" enshrining the British Bill of Rights and the whole bit of history in the UK over killing the King over the issue of his interpretation of 'divine right of King' and tilting government back to the idealized Anglo Saxon principle of "rule by consent" (circa like 500) by warrior Kings, during the Glorious Revolution and following Bill of Rights 1689:

> the pretended power of suspending the laws and dispensing with laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal

A 327 year old principle. Which in the political rhetoric of the day was largely spoken of as a similar restoration that the Magna Carta represented some nearly 500 years earlier when the Norman invasion was also seen in the following years to have severed the Anglo Saxon principle of rule by consent. Again, that was another idealized rhetoric, not 100% fact, but powerful none the less.

The Stuart Monarchs really liked the idea of "divine right of Kings" as seen in France, which resulted in their dethroning and one of them loosing his head. And eventually the Glorious Revolution and Bill of Rights. The "pretended power" which implies that the people, through Parliament, latching onto that mythic idea of the Anglo-Saxon Kings ruling by consent in the era of 500-1066, as Warrior Kings protecting the people from the Danes and Viking invasions. Kind of like how a Pirate ship was largely a democracy under the Captain in all matters but rules of engagement and war, I suppose.



And the Crown in a large part gets its authority from the concept of time immemorial - it has always existed into the mists of time- ,rule by consent as represented by the warrior Kings of the Anglo-Saxons defending the nation-state above the fray of every day politics. (local shires) And representative of the social contract that one submits to authority of law and good governance, and the subjectivity requires duty to the State like paying taxes in exchange for being a citizenship of the commonwealth; or political union, and having his inalienable rights protected (by the Crown, not the PM). A lot of this stuff goes back to the Age of Enlightment thinkers, like Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke.

Disallowance and Reservation are powers in the Constitution that is only actionable by the Cabinet of the Federal Parliament (via responsible government), and have been recognized as no longer being constitutional powers that can be used by the Feds- in a kind of 'use it or loose it principle'.

EDIT:
Kind of a thing of interest to me. I really wonder what will happen when QE2 dies. Hopefully we develop into a Crowned Republic- as I see no reason why the Crown can't be personified by an elected or appointed official. Worse case will be a Presidential system where the PM assumes the powers of the GG. But this is way off the subject of this thread. Fun fact: the only part of our Constitution vetoed by Imperial Parliament was the name: Kingdom of Canada, was deemed provocative towards the States, and presumptuous- putting it on the same footing as the UK.

I think we've officially derailed the conversation in this thread :)

[Uhuniau]

I strongly disagree with making 24 Sussex an executive office. Keeping the PMO on the hill or at least adjacent to it jives with it being an arm of the legislative branch.

Exactly. No need for a White House North.

I'd be OK with renovating the existing house at a reasonable cost, and, maybe in the future, building an outbuilding to serve as a protocol room for Prime Ministerial occasions... but no need for a West Wing. That's what Langevin is for.

[Uhuniau]

There is no separation in Canada between the executive branch and the legislative branch - there is in no way 3 separate branches of government in Canada. This is an imported Americanism that has even found its way into our school system.

The executive branch is responsible to the legislature, yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a separate executive branch, because there is.

[Mikeed]

I think we've officially derailed the conversation in this thread :)

I just, I just love history.. lol

Again, I feel like if we're spending $40 million on this we gotta get some bang for this buck. Make it so it can host First Minister meetings, and regardless it will probably have a remote office attache to the GOC.

[Mikeed]

The executive branch is responsible to the legislature, yes, but that doesn't mean there isn't a separate executive branch, because there is.

No, there is not:

Fusion of powers is a feature of parliamentary democracies, especially those following the Westminster system, where the executive and legislative branches of government are intermingled. It is often contrasted with the more strict separation of powers found in most presidential democracies.

I have no idea how you can argue that when the executive branch sits in, and is responsible to the legislative branch. That is not separate.

Does the executive branch exist? Yes, made up of Crown and Cabinet, and a separate bureaucracy. Are they separated? No, they are literally intertwined and one is subordinate to the other. The legislative branch is supreme.

[Uhuniau]

No, there is not:

I have no idea how you can argue that when the executive branch sits in, and is responsible to the legislative branch. That is not separate.

Because they still exercise their own respective powers.

Does the executive branch exist? Yes, made up of Crown and Cabinet, and a separate bureaucracy. Are they separated? No, they are literally intertwined and one is subordinate to the other. The legislative branch is supreme.

No, one is responsible to the other.

[acottawa]

In a parliamentary system of government there is obviously overlap between the executive and legislative branches (because by convention members of the cabinet are drawn from the house of commons and/or senate) but they are distinct legal entities. Cabinet ministers take separate oaths, have separate parliamentary/cabinet email address and separate staff in their parliamentary and cabinet offices. When the legislative branch is dissolved before an election, cabinet ministers retain their posts until a new government is formed.

[rocketphish]

Majority of Canadians support replacing 24 Sussex: Nanos poll

Laura Stone
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Dec. 25, 2016 6:44PM EST | Last updated Sunday, Dec. 25, 2016 6:46PM EST

He grew up at 24 Sussex Dr., but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau might want to consider tearing down his childhood home.

More than half of Canadians think the federal government should replace the prime minister’s residence with a new building if it’s cheaper than the estimated $38-million renovation, according to a new poll from Nanos Research Group.

Nationally, 54 per cent of Canadians think the residence should be replaced, while 34 per cent want it renovated. Another 12 per cent are unsure, according to the poll, which surveyed 1,000 Canadians between Dec. 16 and Dec. 19. The national figures have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

“What the survey shows is that there is a heavy dose of taxpayer pragmatism when it comes to the prime minister’s residence,” Nanos Research founder Nik Nanos said in an interview.

“It’s pretty clear that only about one out of every three Canadians would support renovating 24 Sussex at a cost of $38-million.”

A report from iPolitics last month said restoration and repairs to the prime minister’s residence, including building a new annex with private quarters and a pool, could cost almost $38-million, according to documents obtained by the online news site.

Aaron Wudrick, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, said security considerations at the prime minister’s residence would undoubtedly make it more expensive than the average home. But he said many Canadians question why it would cost up to 10 times as much as other large estates.

“I don’t think anyone denies the prime minister needs a secure, pleasant residence,” Mr. Wudrick said.

“I would suggest that they definitely look at the cheapest viable option, even if one of those options is tearing down the house entirely, or building a new residence in a different location.”

Support for replacing the property varies between different regions in Canada.

Quebec and Atlantic Canada feel less nostalgia for the residence, with 59.7 per cent of Quebeckers and 58.9 per cent of Atlantic Canadians wanting to see it torn down and replaced, the survey said.

In Ontario, only 48.6 per cent of people want it torn down, while in British Columbia the number is 49.5 per cent. In the Prairies, it’s 54 per cent, the same as the national average.

After his election last year, Mr. Trudeau declined to move into the decrepit mansion and, instead, set up at Rideau Cottage on the grounds of the Governor-General’s residence.

In 2008, the auditor-general found the building to be in poor shape – with cracked windows, aging wiring and deficient plumbing.

The 24 Sussex building, which was completed in 1868, was expropriated by the federal government in 1943. Seven years later, it was decided to use it as a home for the prime minister and Louis St. Laurent was the first to live there, starting in 1951.

“In one way, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is a victim of the inaction of previous prime ministers, who probably should have done some sort of renovation,” Mr. Nanos said.

The National Capital Commission, which is working on plans for the future of the 24 Sussex building, has said no decisions have been made.

A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister’s Office said the residence requires “significant repairs.”

“No decisions have been made regarding any proposals for renovations at 24 Sussex Drive. The government will provide an update in due course,” spokeswoman Andrée-Lyne Hallé wrote in an e-mail.

Mr. Trudeau spent a majority of his childhood at the residence when his father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, was prime minister during the 1970s and early 1980s.

With a report from The Canadian Press

Follow Laura Stone on Twitter: @l_stone

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/majority-of-canadians-support-replacing-24-sussex-nanos-poll/article33429790/

[HighwayStar]

Speaking of "Peace, Order and Renovations" (in the other thread)..... anyone know what is going on with this one? I've heard nothing for more than a year...

[bless-u]

It's a really tough call whether to demolish or renovate it. On one hand, it is a heritage building with great significance to the history of Canada; on the other, renovating a building like this can be a bottomless pit, cost-wise, considering all the special security needs and all.

If it were up to me, I would renovate it in typical standard and turn it into a museum without spending additional cost on security measures, and then relocate the PM residence to a new location with a thoroughly modern building that enjoys the benefits of all latest tech it requires. It'd still probably be cheaper than the current projection plus the expected extra costs in the final bills.

It may sound like a bad idea to a lot of people, I know that, but so was the idea of relocating the national capital from Upper Canada to Ottawa back then. We need to think outside the box rather than being limited by it, in this case, the house itself.

[roger1818]

It's a really tough call whether to demolish or renovate it. One one hand, it is a heritage building with great significance to the history of Canada;

I question the historical significance of 24 Sussex. True it was built in 1866 but it didn't become official residence of the Prime Minister until 1951 (about 77 years ago). Also, given the few have actually seen much of the building, it is the address more than the architecture that is significant.

[bless-u]

I question the historical significance of 24 Sussex. True it was built in 1866 but it didn't become official residence of the Prime Minister until 1951 (about 77 years ago). Also, given the few have actually seen much of the building, it is the address more than the architecture that is significant.

I think 24 Sussex has its historical significance being the residence of our Prime Ministers even for a relatively brief period, though not as strong as other heritage buildings like the Parliament Building, for example. However, we shouldn't deny its special status. Demolition may be a bit drastic. It probably makes a stronger case for turning it into a museum. I believe in conservation. A 19th Century building in good condition is certainly worth keeping IMO.

[roger1818]

I think 24 Sussex has its historical significance being the resident of our Prime Ministers even for a relatively brief period, though not as strong as other heritage buildings like the Parliament Building, for example. However, we shouldn't deny its special status. Demolition may be a bit drastic. It probably makes a stronger case for turning it into a museum. I believe in conservation.

As you said the significance of 24 Sussex is it is the Prine Minister's residence. Turn it into a museum and it becomes just another old building that in 50 years only historians will remember the significance of. We don't need to shoehorn a nameless museum into an old building. It is likely too small to house anything significant and too remote to get much attention from its location. People might be interested for a decade or two but then what. Keep refurbishing a building that no one ever visits?

Demolished (and rebuilt) or referbished it should remain the Prime Minister's residence IMO.

A 19th Century building in good condition is certainly worth keeping IMO

But it's not in good condition. That's why it needs to be referbished or replaced. If it has some architectural significance that I'm not aware of, by all means keep it, but just because its old does make it worth keeping.

[HighwayStar]

But it's not in good condition. That's why it needs to be referbished or replaced. If it has some architectural significance that I'm not aware of, by all means keep it, but just because its old does make it worth keeping.

So back to my question... has the NCC just put the whole thing on the back-burner for the forseeable future??

I googled around and can't find any reference to anything other than full-blown inactivity on the file.

[acottawa]

So back to my question... has the NCC just put the whole thing on the back-burner for the forseeable future??

I googled around and can't find any reference to anything other than full-blown inactivity on the file.

I think it remains political suicide. The only way this is going to work is if the decision and oversight is turned over to some sort of cross-party committee (maybe co-chaired by a former Liberal PM and a former Tory PM) and there was a move-in date far enough in the future that nobody involved in the decision would be seen as benefiting from it.

Personally, I like the idea of turning it over to a TV personality (Mike Holmes, etc). If Mike Holmes says they need to spend big bucks the public will believe him.

[bless-u]

Demolished (and rebuilt) or referbished it should remain the Prime Minister's residence IMO.

But a lot of people are concerned about the renovation cost and the initial quotation does seem high and the final cost at completion will likely be even higher, which leads to the suggestion of total demolition and rebuild. I find it a bit drastic to have it demolished, but I do agree the building is too old and probably not worth the huge investment. To me, it'd be more sensible and cost effective to build a new one with all the necessary modern technology and security hardware, but on a new site close by and leave the existing building alone. That's just me....

But it's not in good condition. That's why it needs to be referbished or replaced. If it has some architectural significance that I'm not aware of, by all means keep it, but just because its old does make it worth keeping.

I think the building envelop, the stone structure itself, is fine. The fading interior seems to be the main problem. It will still make a very decent, even handsome, home for most people, but it is quite inadequate for Prime Ministers with all the security needs and concerns. I quite like the building personally.

[acottawa]

I think the building envelop, the stone structure itself, is fine. The fading interior seems to be the main problem. It will still make a very decent, even handsome, home for most people, but it is quite inadequate for Prime Ministers with all the security needs and concerns. I quite like the building personally.

The exterior was pretty extensively modified.

OG
http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MAC47_24_SUSSEX_POST05.jpg

Recent
http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MAC47_24_SUSSEX_POST02.jpg

[J.OT13]

I get that Harper refused to move out, but the NCC could have taken that time to do the necessary studies on what the next steps should be while he (Harper) sat on his ass. Make the plans before evicting.

If they just renovate the building into nothing more than a residents for the PM instead of adding a bunch of functions that can be and are currently accommodated elsewhere (PMO, meeting places for dignitaries...), it doesn't have to cost a ridiculous amount.

Anyway, the most recent article I've seen was in Le Droit.

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/le-droit/20180110/282218011186680

According to the article, the building needs to be renovated, but it is not falling apart. The reason is so damn slow is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Everyone wants their say; the NCC, Heritage, Finance, the Privy Council, the RCMP...

[kwoldtimer]

I get that Harper refused to move out, but the NCC could have taken that time to do the necessary studies on what the next steps should be while he (Harper) sat on his ass. Make the plans before evicting.

If they just renovate the building into nothing more than a residents for the PM instead of adding a bunch of functions that can be and are currently accommodated elsewhere (PMO, meeting places for dignitaries...), it doesn't have to cost a ridiculous amount.

Anyway, the most recent article I've seen was in Le Droit.

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/le-droit/20180110/282218011186680

According to the article, the building needs to be renovated, but it is not falling apart. The reason is so damn slow is that there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Everyone wants their say; the NCC, Heritage, Finance, the Privy Council, the RCMP...

The minimum cost estimate I've seen is $38million. Harper didn't want to touch it and I doubt that Trudeau will either. The involvement of multiple agencies is not the reason things are slow. Perhaps a benefactor will come forward to renovate the place as a gift to the nation.

[acottawa]

If they just renovate the building into nothing more than a residents for the PM instead of adding a bunch of functions that can be and are currently accommodated elsewhere (PMO, meeting places for dignitaries...), it doesn't have to cost a ridiculous amount.

Isn't that sort of the problem? 24 Sussex isn't used for any state, official or office functions so it is mostly just an oversized private house that hosts the odd working dinner or garden party. Two years of closure doesn't seem to have affected much.

[bless-u]

The exterior was pretty extensively modified.

The aesthetics of the previous renovation was rather subjective. It turned the Victorian style mansion to a somewhat Georgian Style mansion. It was done more for personal preference than necessity, it seemed. I wonder how extensive the interior renovation was.

[rocketphish]

Trudeau says he doesn't see himself ever returning to live at 24 Sussex
Trudeau says no prime minister wants to be seen spending taxpayers' money on their home

By Catharine Tunney, CBC News
Posted: Feb 01, 2018 5:00 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 01, 2018 9:27 PM ET

https://i.cbc.ca/1.3295070.1446149034!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/24-sussex-drive.jpg

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says it is unlikely he'll ever return to live at 24 Sussex Drive, the deteriorating, mouse-infested, hydro-draining and oft-spoofed official residence of Canada's head of government.

Trudeau told CBC Radio's The House that he doesn't see himself returning to his boyhood home at any point.

"I'm fairly resigned to not live in that house for the entire term," he told host Chris Hall in an interview airing Saturday.

The stone mansion was originally named Gorffwysfa, Welsh for "place of peace." But it has been anything but for the prime ministers who have lived there.

"There's a real challenge in this country. Anything that a prime minister decides that they can potentially benefit from — that's one of the reasons that that house has gone into the ground since the time I lived there — is that no prime minister wants to spend a penny of taxpayer dollars on upkeeping that house," said Trudeau, who moved his family into the nearby Rideau Cottage after taking office.

An auditor general's report in 2008 called for "urgent" repairs to the stone mansion. The report said the 35-room residence, built in 1868, hasn't had major renovations in 50 years and pegged the repair bill at $10 million.

It also found the windows, plumbing, electrical systems, heating and air conditioning in poor to critical condition, and noted the home had no fire sprinklers and contained asbestos.

But Trudeau won't have to fight in the House of Commons to fix up his former house.

Both Conservative and NDP spokespeople told CBC News they believe the residence should be repaired and that they would support Trudeau if he went ahead with renovations.

The Conservatives later contradicted that position with Ontario Conservative MP Erin O'Toole saying that he would only consider supporting renovations and repairs once Trudeau had repaid the costs of his trip to the Aga Khan's island home.

Conservative Party spokesperson Jake Enwright, who had given the original statement, later told CBC News that O'Toole's comments reflected the party's updated position on the prime minister's official residence.

Former prime minister Paul Martin, who once went to Canadian Tire with comedian Rick Mercer to buy plastic to cover the home's drafty windows, said government should be removed from ruling on renovations..

"I didn't maintain it, neither did the prime ministers who came before me, and obviously that has continued," he told CBC News.

"I believe that if it had been turned over to an independent commission, it would have been treated as a non-partisan issue long ago."

Martin, who lived at 24 Sussex between 2003 and 2006, said questions about the residence have followed him even after returning the keys.

"People have actually approached me on the street to talk about it. Everybody I've ever talked to believes, as I do, and I think that most people do, that it should be kept up," he said.

"This is a house that belongs to Canada."

Kim Campbell, the only prime minister besides Trudeau not to live at 24 Sussex since the 1950s, said she agrees the house shouldn't deteriorate.

"Especially in this time of heightened security concerns, an official residence creates a secure 'bubble' in which the prime minister's family can live," she said.

Former prime minister Joe Clark told CBC News that the home is "of no interest whatsoever to him."

His wife, Maureen McTeer has been vocal of her distaste for the home.

"An old, crumbling building with asbestos, which we know is poison, really is so lacking of vision, if you will, and [does not reflect] who we are as Canadians," she said.

In his biography, former prime minister Brian Mulroney said that when he considered renovations — to be split between government, the Progressive Conservative Party and himself — Jeanne Sauvé, the governor general at the time, warned him it would be a mistake.

He said she told him: "'None of what you propose to do will be appreciated. In this town, no good deed goes unpunished. You are needlessly penalizing your family, and any expenditure you or the party make at 24 Sussex will be turned against you.'"

Mulroney and his wife Mila Mulroney were attacked in the press when it became known the party gave them $308,000 to pay for renovations at 24 Sussex and Harrington Lake, the office's country home, including a massive closet for shoes and expensive wallpaper. It became known as "Gucci-gate."

"When I left office, we were accused in the media of trying to 'remove' furniture from 24 Sussex. Yet it was ours, we'd paid for it, and in fact we left most of it behind," he wrote.

Trudeau's mother, Margaret, whose marriage to Pierre Elliott Trudeau unravelled during their time at the home, once described it as the "crown jewel of the federal penitentiary system."

While the home itself dates back to Confederation, it was originally built for a prominent logging baron.

Louis St-Laurent was the first prime minister to move in during the 1951, the last time the house saw a major renovation.

Trudeau the younger says he's "looking into how to maintain that particular piece of infrastructure."

"I've made the decisions to talk to experts and to look at the NCC and allow them to make the determinations on what the future of 24 Sussex will look like," he said.

The National Capital Commission maintains Canada's official residences, but wouldn't comment on the cost to repair 24 Sussex.

"The words of the prime minister encourage us to continue working with the government to advance the NCC's plan to renew 24 Sussex Drive," said Mark Kristmanson, CEO of the National Capital Commission,

When asked if the $10-million projected renovation costs have climbed in the decade since the auditor general's report, an official pointed out it wouldn't have included extra security measures in the wake of the Oct. 22, 2014, Parliament Hill shooting.
Even though it sits vacant, the federal heritage building racks up maintenance bills.

Between November 2015 and March 2016, it cost $180,000 to keep it heated, lit up and clear of snow. The hydro bills alone for that five-month period weighed in at $38,881.

An official speaking on background said those bills aren't out of the ordinary.

On top of that, Global News reported that the NCC has awarded nearly $113,000 in outside contracts linked to 24 Sussex since the start of 2016.

Listen to the full interview with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on The House (http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse) this Saturday at 9 a.m. (9:30 a.m. in Newfoundland) on CBC Radio One and SiriusXM 169.

With files from the CBC's Chris Hall and Evan Dyer

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/24-sussex-drive-trudeau-not-living-1.4511732

[Norman Bates]

How very Canadian of us, to treat 24 Sussex in this disgraceful way.

[eltodesukane]

"...the repair bill at $10 million"
"...the residence should be repaired"
-- Don't repair, build a new house for less than $10 million.

[ars]

I agree with Paul Martin, the upkeep of 24 Sussex should not be left up to the PMO, there should be a committee dedicated to maintaining the property as long as it remains the official residence of the Prime Minister.

[bless-u]

Seems like few more residences will be renovated along with 24 Sussex:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/24-sussex-repairs-may-be-followed-by-work-on-opposition-leaders-house/article37829158/

[rocketphish]

Seems like few more residences will be renovated along with 24 Sussex:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/24-sussex-repairs-may-be-followed-by-work-on-opposition-leaders-house/article37829158/

24 Sussex repairs may be followed by work on Opposition Leader’s house

Daniel Leblanc, Ottawa
The Globe and Mail
Published February 2, 2018 | Updated 36 minutes ago

Long-awaited plans to renovate 24 Sussex Dr. have been put on hold as the federal government explores a bigger and more expensive strategy that would also include repairs to the official residences of the leader of the opposition and the speaker of the House of Commons, federal sources said.

Renovating the official Ottawa residence of the prime minister has long been a hot potato in Canadian politics, with successive governments hesitating to invest public funds in high-end accommodations.

However, it is also seen as a necessity given the poor state of 24 Sussex, as laid out in a number of expert reports. In 2008, the auditor-general found the building to be in poor shape – with cracked windows, aging wiring and deficient plumbing – and in need of $10-million worth of repairs. The same report said that four other official residences in the Ottawa area needed nearly $2-million in renovations.

The estimated price tag to renovate 24 Sussex has since gone up four-fold, in large part because of security requirements. It is not known what is the estimated cost at this point of renovating Stornoway (the residence of the leader of the opposition, in Ottawa's Rockcliffe Park neighbourhood), Harrington Lake (the prime minister's secondary residence, in the Gatineau Hills of Quebec), the Farm (used by the speaker of the House, and also in Gatineau Park) and 7 Rideau Gate (used by official visitors).

Instead of simply putting together a final plan to renovate 24 Sussex Dr., sources said the National Capital Commission – the government agency that oversees federal properties in the National Capital Region – has been considering a broader strategy that would also include the residence currently used by Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer.

For the government, the strategy would have the political advantage of redoing the residences of both the prime minister and the leader of the opposition in the same package.

The NCC refused to lay out its strategy at this point, stating it is still preparing options for the government.

"I can only confirm that the National Capital Commission is working with its federal partners to develop a plan for the future of 24 Sussex Dr. that includes all facets of the project to ensure the federal government is able to make a prudent and informed decision," NCC spokesman Jean Wolff said. "Further information, including how this plan may or may not serve plans for the other Official Residences, will be made available in due course."

After starting to live at 24 Sussex in 2006, former prime minister Stephen Harper refused to move out to allow wide-ranging renovations until the end of his tenure.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, on the other hand, did not move into 24 Sussex after winning power in 2015, preferring to install his family at Rideau Cottage on the grounds of the governor-general's residence.

Still, Mr. Trudeau – who lived in the residence when his father was prime minister in the 1970s and 1980s – has yet to approve a renovation package for the official residence.

"Anything that a prime minister decides that they can potentially benefit from – that's one of the reasons that that house has gone into the ground since the time I lived there – is that no prime minister wants to spend a penny of taxpayer dollars on upkeeping that house," Mr. Trudeau said in an interview with the CBC this week.

The Conservatives support the eventual renovation of 24 Sussex and will encourage Mr. Trudeau, if he is still Prime Minister when the residence is ready, to move back there.

"The residence belongs to Canada and it should be maintained," said Conservative spokesman Jake Enwright.

One senior federal official said the Prime Minister – and his successor if someone else wins the 2019 general election – will be expected to continue using Rideau Cottage until 24 Sussex is renovated. Afterward, Rideau Cottage could be used by the leader of the official opposition of the day while construction crews take on Stornoway, the official said. The speaker could then use Rideau Cottage while the Farm is being renovated.

The NCC is the lead agency on the file, but other federal organizations will also have a say in the final plans: the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council, the RCMP, Treasury Board and Finance.

Brian Mulroney and his family delayed moving into 24 Sussex after the 1984 election to allow for renovations, which were paid for with a mix of public and party funds. Details of those renovations, including a large closet for Mr. Mulroney, designed to accommodate 30 suits and 84 pairs of shoes, dogged the Mulroney family for years.

Bruce Carson, a former senior aide to Mr. Harper, wrote a book in which he noted that prime minister Paul Martin and his wife had found 24 Sussex to be "cold and drafty" and that the NCC wanted the Harpers to delay their move into the residence following the 2006 election. "Harper's response was that the Martins were a lot older than his family, and if it got cold, his family would wear sweaters," Mr. Carson wrote.

Follow Daniel Leblanc on Twitter @danlebla

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/24-sussex-repairs-may-be-followed-by-work-on-opposition-leaders-house/article37829158/

[YYCguys]

The exterior was pretty extensively modified.

OG
http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MAC47_24_SUSSEX_POST05.jpg

Recent
http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MAC47_24_SUSSEX_POST02.jpg

Is this even the same building?!?!? What a drastic change if so!

For whatever my two cents is worth, how is it possible that The White House, which is perhaps the same vintage, is so grand looking, but 24 Sussex isn’t so? There seems to be no problems with its upkeep.

It seems a waste of money to keep the lights on, the walks shoveled and the place secured when no one is living in 24 Sussex at the moment, when you consider that the same costs are now going into Rideau Cottage. I’m a history buff and loved the thrill of walking past and briefly peering into 24 Sussex when I visited Ottawa a few years ago, but if demolishing and rebuilding is the most cost effective and safest option that gets the PM’s family back to 24 Sussex as expeditiously as possible, then so be it. Hopefully heels won’t be dragged on this issue much longer.

[jchamoun79]

For whatever my two cents is worth, how is it possible that The White House, which is perhaps the same vintage, is so grand looking, but 24 Sussex isn’t so? There seems to be no problems with its upkeep.

For the most part, Canadians are just plain cheap.

We also tend to be resentful or disdainful of politicians and successful people in general.

And we don’t seem to value our built heritage as much as Americans do, or, frankly, people in most other countries.

[c_speed3108]

For the most part, Canadians are just plain cheap.

We also tend to be resentful or disdainful of politicians and successful people in general.

And we don’t seem to value our built heritage as much as Americans do, or, frankly, people in most other countries.

The other difference is the White house has an administrative function...particularly the West Wing.

24 Sussex is purely a residence. It at most has an entertaining dignitaries function, but otherwise it is a place for the PM to live.

[YYCguys]

The other difference is the White house has an administrative function...particularly the West Wing.

24 Sussex is purely a residence. It at most has an entertaining dignitaries function, but otherwise it is a place for the PM to live.

Has there ever been a proposal in the past to expand 24 Sussex- a la West Wing- to include the PMO and other required functions?

[roger1818]

For the most part, Canadians are just plain cheap.

We also tend to be resentful or disdainful of politicians and successful people in general.

And we don’t seem to value our built heritage as much as Americans do, or, frankly, people in most other countries.

Americans seem to take great pride in Washington DC, even if they have never visited it. As a result the US Government is able to make it a capital to be proud of. Canadians on the other hand seem to talk about Ottawa with disdain and any investment in the Capital is viewed as a waste.

If the PM is afraid to spend money on renovations but the opposition leader supports it, why doesn't Andrew Sheer start a tradition of tabling a private members bill to fund the maintenance of 24 Sussex prior to the release of the budget. Make it a free vote and if it passes, the blood isn't on the PM's hands (he could choose to be absent and not vote).

[kwoldtimer]

Has there ever been a proposal in the past to expand 24 Sussex- a la West Wing- to include the PMO and other required functions?

Yes, that has been bandied about. At the extreme end wasn't there an idea floated to convert the NRC builidng into a "PM's palace", combining both residential and PMO functions?

[acottawa]

People watch too much American TV.

[McC]

If the PM is afraid to spend money on renovations but the opposition leader supports it, why doesn't Andrew Sheer start a tradition of tabling a private members bill to fund the maintenance of 24 Sussex prior to the release of the budget. Make it a free vote and if it passes, the blood isn't on the PM's hands (he could choose to be absent and not vote).

Any bill with direct fiscal impacts requires a Royal Warrant, so the Government would need to endorse the bill at the outset for it to be in order, which kind of defeats your intended purpose. A non-binding motion would be possible, but, non-binding. In either case, it would also need unanimous consent to be tabled outside of the order of precedence for Private Members’ Business. Always tough to get.

[Paul29]

If the PM is afraid to spend money on renovations but the opposition leader supports it, why doesn't Andrew Sheer start a tradition of tabling a private members bill to fund the maintenance of 24 Sussex prior to the release of the budget. Make it a free vote and if it passes, the blood isn't on the PM's hands (he could choose to be absent and not vote).

IIRC, Sheer wants the PM to admit wrongdoing and repay his vacation to Aga Khan's island in exchange for supporting a Sussex reno.

[Uhuniau]

IIRC, Sheer wants the PM to admit wrongdoing and repay his vacation to Aga Khan's island in exchange for supporting a Sussex reno.

Even by the low standards of political horse-trading, that's.... dumb.

[acottawa]

IIRC, Sheer wants the PM to admit wrongdoing and repay his vacation to Aga Khan's island in exchange for supporting a Sussex reno.

Where did you hear that?

[Paul29]

Where did you hear that?

It was either 1310 or 580 yesterday morning.

[roger1818]

Where did you hear that?

The news article in Post #50:

The Conservatives later contradicted that position with Ontario Conservative MP Erin O'Toole saying that he would only consider supporting renovations and repairs once Trudeau had repaid the costs of his trip to the Aga Khan's island home.

It wasn't Sheer who said it though.

[acottawa]

The news article in Post #50:



It wasn't Sheer who said it though.

That sounds more like a backbencher trying to get some attention rather than an official position.

[J.OT13]

Ridiculous. Yes Trudeau needs to refund taxpayers for the Agha Khan, but 24 Sussex has nothing to do with it.

[phil235]

That sounds more like a backbencher trying to get some attention rather than an official position.

Um, no. From the article:

"Conservative Party spokesperson Jake Enwright, who had given the original statement, later told CBC News that O'Toole's comments reflected the party's updated position on the prime minister's official residence."

[acottawa]

Um, no. From the article:

"Conservative Party spokesperson Jake Enwright, who had given the original statement, later told CBC News that O'Toole's comments reflected the party's updated position on the prime minister's official residence."

Weird, the Globe article on the same subject made no reference to such conditions and quoted the same spokesperson saying "The residence belongs to Canada and it should be maintained."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/24-sussex-repairs-may-be-followed-by-work-on-opposition-leaders-house/article37829158/

All of the statements from both parties provide good reasons why the decision should be taken out of politicians' hands.

[roger1818]

all of the statements from both parties provide good reasons why the decision should be taken out of politicians' hands.

+1

[phil235]

Weird, the Globe article on the same subject made no reference to such conditions and quoted the same spokesperson saying "The residence belongs to Canada and it should be maintained."

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/24-sussex-repairs-may-be-followed-by-work-on-opposition-leaders-house/article37829158/

All of the statements from both parties provide good reasons why the decision should be taken out of politicians' hands.

Apparently they thought about it and decided to double down on that statement.

Agreed, it is ridiculous that politicians are given the opportunity to try to score points on this. Give it to an independent commission and be done with it.

[rocketphish]

Engineers find more asbestos in 24 Sussex than previously reported
Internal budget for renos has more than doubled since 2008 OAG report, to $26 million

By Catharine Tunney, CBC News
Posted: Mar 14, 2018 5:00 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 14, 2018 5:56 PM ET

The prime minister's official residence has more asbestos in it than previously thought, according to a third-party review.

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau moved into government, he opted not to move his family into 24 Sussex — instead choosing Rideau Cottage over the drafty and deteriorating official residence that was his childhood home.

Seizing on the empty home, the National Capital Commission — the Crown corporation responsible for 24 Sussex's upkeep — hired consultants to poke and prod the Confederation-era building ahead of any hoped-for renovations.

In 2015, the engineering firm Exp Services Inc. sent its investigators into the grounds' main building, the pool house and the neighbouring RCMP building to survey for hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead paint.

The Exp specialists drilled into the plaster 15 times with a vacuum to extract samples. They were given past asbestos reports on the home as a starting point — but they noticed an error.

"Previous reporting identified the plaster within the building as being non-asbestos. However, sampling programs completed as part of the building assessment have demonstrated that grey coarse plaster within the building is asbestos-containing," reads the report, obtained by CBC News through the Access to Information Act.

Asbestos has been condemned by the World Health Organization as a health threat and the once-common fireproofing material is now banned in some 50 countries around the world.

Canada was once a leading world supplier of the carcinogenic mineral. It's linked to mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer that can develop in the lining of the lungs as a result of inhaling asbestos dust and fibres.

The stone mansion's grey plaster "forms the majority of the walls/ceilings" of the main building, notes the report. Inspectors found that while the building's white plaster didn't contain asbestos, they felt it couldn't be easily separated from the contaminated plaster.

On the plus side, the plaster was in good condition and the engineering team said the walls could be left as long as 24 Sussex is simply re-occupied or maintained as-is.

"However, in the event that the building is to be renovated, it is recommended that the plaster be removed," said the report.

Laura Lozanski, an occupational health and safety officer with the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said asbestos in plaster — especially in older homes — can be easily disturbed by rubbing up against it or drilling a hole into it, which can release toxic fibres.

"Once the fibres are disturbed they go into the air and that's how we either breathe them in or ingest them. So we always have quite serious concerns," said Lozanski, who has become one of Canada's most active asbestos educators.

"I'm going to assume this plaster is old … It's probably been releasing fibres from time to time over the years."

Lozanski said being exposed to asbestos doesn't automatically lead to an asbestos-related disease.

"But if you have been exposed, the risk is there," she said.

Previous inspections of 24 Sussex had unearthed asbestos in the home's drywall and in the pipe insulation.

The Exp report noted that no asbestos has been removed from the building since 2011, when a team pulled vermiculite asbestos from one of the home's rooms.

Lozanski said the risk isn't borne only by the families that have lived at 24 Sussex, but also by any staffers or construction workers who have spent time in the residence.

That's why the Public Service Alliance of Canada has been pushing the federal government to create a national registry of public buildings that contain asbestos.

"This registry must not only pinpoint buildings, but exactly where asbestos is hiding inside," said PSAC President Robyn Benson.

Exp referred all questions about 24 Sussex to the NCC.

The NCC wouldn't say whether any former occupants, staff or contractors have been tested for asbestos exposure.
"As part of its duties as steward of the Official Residences, the National Capital Commission is renewing various studies, including site surveys of the grounds, the main building and the four ancillary buildings, asbestos testing and other life cycle evaluations," said spokesperson Jean Wolff in an email.

The outside report offers a glimpse of what still needs to be done to renovate the home. The Exp team argued the wall and ceiling plaster and the stucco would all have to removed for safety reasons, along with flaking lead paint.

Exp reported it would cost just under $1 million to remove the asbestos — about half of that just to remove the plaster walls.

According to at least one estimate, the cost of rehabilitating the home has almost tripled since the Office of the Auditor General pegged the cost of renovations at about $10 million back in 2008.

An internal draft, included in the access to information package released to CBC News, put the renovation cost at $26.2 million, excluding security costs.

That itemized tally includes a number of renovations not included in the auditor general's review, such as upgrading the building's water and gas systems, fixing the sunroom and enhancing the home's appliances, fixtures, paint, wood panelling and staff office.

​The NCC has paid for a number of consultations on the home while it sits empty, including one for a heritage documentation that cost nearly $140,000.

As the Huffington Post previously reported, the NCC has received multiple scenarios for renovating the residence, ranging from modest nip-and-tucks to a $561.7 million White House-type complex.

The 322-page access to information package shows the NCC was hoping for a decision from the Prime Minister's Office greenlighting major renovations.

Staff even drew up a draft package seeking professional design services.

The author was bold enough to write that the "Government of Canada has decided to complete a major recapitalization project for the residence of the Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive."

Right now, however, any plans to renovate the home remain in limbo.

Prime ministers have been reluctant to update the home for public relations reasons. The last time the 35-room home saw a major facelift was back in the 1950s, when prime ministers first started to use the home as their official residence.

Trudeau has said he has no plans to move back into the home he grew up in during his father's tenure as prime minister.

"I've made the decisions to talk to experts and to look at the NCC and allow them to make the determinations on what the future of 24 Sussex will look like," he said.

The NCC says it "is working with its federal partners to develop a plan for the future of the official residences including 24 Sussex Drive to ensure the federal government is able to make a prudent and informed decision."

The Prime Minister's Office referred all questions about 24 Sussex to the NCC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/24-sussex-asbestos-plaster-1.4565747

[YYCguys]

Where is Rideau Cottage on Rideau Hall grounds? Is it in behind the main building? I don’t recall seeing it when I visited the grounds a few years ago.

[kwoldtimer]

Where is Rideau Cottage on Rideau Hall grounds? Is it in behind the main building? I don’t recall seeing it when I visited the grounds a few years ago.

Isn't it back behind the back gardens/greenhouse, over toward Dufferin Road?

[AndyMEng]

Where is Rideau Cottage on Rideau Hall grounds? Is it in behind the main building? I don’t recall seeing it when I visited the grounds a few years ago.

There's an entire administrative 'village' behind the residence that unauthorized people aren't ever going to visit. There are a few rows of townhouses, a couple of 'cottages', a few storage buildings, etc. Rideau Cottage is just a bit to the south-east of the main building. On google maps there's a large turning circle in front of the cottage.

[rocketphish]

There's an entire administrative 'village' behind the residence that unauthorized people aren't ever going to visit. There are a few rows of townhouses, a couple of 'cottages', a few storage buildings, etc. Rideau Cottage is just a bit to the south-east of the main building. On google maps there's a large turning circle in front of the cottage.

Yup, this one:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/45%C2%B026'37.3%22N+75%C2%B040'57.8%22W/@45.4437122,-75.6914868,2896m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d45.4436977!4d-75.6827322?hl=en

[acottawa]

Rick Mercer says tear it down.

https://youtu.be/_Bty-SaHe9c

[YYCguys]

Rick Mercer says tear it down.

https://youtu.be/_Bty-SaHe9c

Former PM Joe Clark’s wife also said the same.

I’m a huge history buff and I value our country’s historical resources, but if the building is laden with asbestos, wouldn’t it be safer and less expensive to just build new homes for our government leaders?

[1overcosc]

Regardless of whether it's renovate or demolish, the process of handling the PM's residence needs to be depoliticized and handed off to a non-partisan entity, ideally the NCC. The key reason why it's in such a dilapidated state is because previous PMs were scared to renovate the space for the political consequence of "spending taxpayers money on my house".

[acottawa]

Regardless of whether it's renovate or demolish, the process of handling the PM's residence needs to be depoliticized and handed off to a non-partisan entity, ideally the NCC. The key reason why it's in such a dilapidated state is because previous PMs were scared to renovate the space for the political consequence of "spending taxpayers money on my house".

The NCC has been responsible for decades, it hasn't worked out at all.

[1overcosc]

^ Ugh. I guess something even more depoliticized? Or maybe the other route... ann all-party committee, perhaps?

[acottawa]

As a first step I think an all party committee needs to decide how it should be used. If it is just a private residence for the PM and their family (which is how it has been used by recent PMs) then maybe Rideau Cottage is a better location anyway. If their is all party consensus that the residence should take on official functions then that would help the NCC (or another organization such as GAC) scope out what is needed.

[YOWetal]

As a first step I think an all party committee needs to decide how it should be used. If it is just a private residence for the PM and their family (which is how it has been used by recent PMs) then maybe Rideau Cottage is a better location anyway. If their is all party consensus that the residence should take on official functions then that would help the NCC (or another organization such as GAC) scope out what is needed.

This makes a lot (too much probably) of sense as an approach going forward.

While our symbolic cheapness can be ridiculous, and certainly is in this case, it is much preferable to most of the world where leaders spend lavishly and without overshigh on themselves and their supporters.

[roger1818]

As a first step I think an all party committee needs to decide how it should be used. If it is just a private residence for the PM and their family (which is how it has been used by recent PMs) then maybe Rideau Cottage is a better location anyway. If their is all party consensus that the residence should take on official functions then that would help the NCC (or another organization such as GAC) scope out what is needed.

Regardless of the location, we need to find a way to solve this government not wanting to spend on itself issue. If Rideau Cottage becomes the new official Prime Minister's residence, it could suffer the same fate as 24 Sussex even if it is considered part of Rideau Hall.

[acottawa]

Regardless of the location, we need to find a way to solve this government not wanting to spend on itself issue. If Rideau Cottage becomes the new official Prime Minister's residence, it could suffer the same fate as 24 Sussex even if it is considered part of Rideau Hall.

That's true, although many of the 24 Sussex problems are one-time challenges related to the fact that it was basically rebuilt in the 1950s (the glory days of asbestos). Also, Rideau Cottage is much smaller.

[AndyMEng]

That's true, although many of the 24 Sussex problems are one-time challenges related to the fact that it was basically rebuilt in the 1950s (the glory days of asbestos). Also, Rideau Cottage is much smaller.

And Rideau Cottage was just rennovated, and thus *should* get about 20-50 years.

[rocketphish]

24 Sussex is crumbling ... and now we have the details

Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: May 31, 2018

https://postmediaottawacitizen2.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/mg_0044-jpg.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=800

Memo to the Trudeau family: You’re smart to stay out of 24 Sussex Drive. Engineers say its walls might drop pieces of rock on those who live there.

Also, the walls have weakened enough to increase the chance of collapse in the event of an earthquake. Remember that day in 2010?

Overall, the outer structure of grey limestone walls is in “poor to fair” condition. Some bits are “very poor.”

The venerable building with the killer view of the river is a victim to time, but also to the original choice of poor-quality limestone for its walls, mortar that varied in quality, and sub-par workmanship decades ago.

In some places, the mortar never made contact with the stones it was meant to hold in place. Some interior gaps never had mortar at all, while mortar in other spots has crumbled away.

And some of the limestone blocks are now “disaggregated,” or cracking apart under forces that include repeated freeze-thaw cycles, like a road with potholes.

Walls are cracked in some places, bowed out sideways in others.

And when the new government owners did a major reno in 1950, they covered over old problems instead of fixing them.

Now a detailed report by Public Works and Procurement Canada provides a detailed look at the “exterior envelope and structure” of 24 Sussex for its owners, the National Capital Commission. Released through access to information, the report has repair cost estimates removed to avoid tipping off future bidders.

Overall, “the exterior walls are considered to be in poor to fair condition.”

Left untreated, it says, the accelerating deterioration of the prime minister’s official residence will cause “an eventual loss of the structural integrity of the wall(s).”

• Let’s start with those stone blocks. Most of the 1867 stones were quarried locally, a material called Gloucester limestone. But the report notes: “Gloucester limestone is known to be a poor quality building stone, and should not be used” in future work. (The material is used today for crushed stone.)

“A large quantity of the Gloucester limestone has become severely disaggregated with multi-directional cracking through the full body of the stone…

“The deterioration poses a health and safety threat to site occupants: fragments of the stones could easily dislodge and fall to the ground.”

The risk is greatest in spring thaw, as with potholes in roads, and is greatest on the home’s south and west sides “where site occupants can easily get close to the building walls.”

The walls aren’t likely to collapse, the report says, but the stones are so bad that if someone removes them to rebuild the wall, they are likely to “disintegrate.”

• Workmanship is a problem, too. The house was built in 1867, renovated and extended in 1909 and again in 1950.

“The workmanship of the 1950s and the earlier masonry work is not considered to be of particularly high quality,” the report says. For instance, they used mortar of varying qualities, “in some cases achieving little or no bond to the stone.”

And the 1950s workers left, in some cases, actual gaps between the stone and the mortar intended to hold it in place.

“The relatively poor workmanship of the 1950s masonry and mortar work will result in a reduced lifespan for the masonry walls.”

•”Significant cracking is evident at six locations on the building’s walls,” and the overall wall condition “varies from very poor to good.”

There is also bulging of the masonry on all four sides of the house.

Eight stone window lintels (the single stone pieces across the tops of windows) have fractured and seven stone sills have fractured.

• A lot of the masonry has crumbled away.

“Numerous open joints (between stones) were observed where all mortar has deteriorated and emptied: a mason’s slick could typically be inserted +/- 200 mm (millimetres) deep into the opening with no resistance.”

“The mortar joints at grade (ground level) are in very poor condition and are generally disintegrated and friable,” meaning they crumble when someone rubs or squeezes the material.

Even worse is the mortar below ground level, found to be “soft, easily removed by hand tools and reverting to sand.”

• Water is getting in and doing bad things, some of it caused by falling-apart gutters and downspouts that don’t drain away water. Moisture has corroded the steel ties that join the limestone to the cinder block wall behind it. And rusting steel lintels over windows are expanding, pushing against and cracking the masonry around windows.

For instance, steel lintels on the north side of the 1950s addition are corroded and this jacks up the wall above them. In addition, the limestone may no long be held in place because the steel ties behind it are corroded. No one can tell without opening up the wall.

If so, “this area of masonry may easily become unstable,” the report warns. It calls for more investigation.

And then there’s the earthquake risk. On paper it shouldn’t be too bad, the engineers say — but the reality is that since the outer limestone walls are no longer well connected to the supporting walls behind them they “may be vulnerable to out-of-plane collapse in an earthquake.”

(Out of plane means the sideways shaking of an earthquake makes a masonry wall bend sideways, and then collapse.)

• There’s some good news. The roof, rebuilt in 1998, is in good shape. So are the six-metre-tall chimneys.

But even with these, there’s a catch. Tall brick chimneys can snap off in earthquakes, and if the NCC decides to quake-proof 24 Sussex, it will have to dismantle the chimneys and rebuild them.

Jim Cowie, a Halifax engineer with experience in historic masonry buildings, says the damage can be fixed but it will be expensive.

He called the building “sadly neglected.”

“It can be fixed. It’s just a matter of putting dollars to it. Plus it’s heritage, and once it becomes heritage there are things you just can’t do,” which includes demolishing and rebuilding from scratch, he said. “No way would they tear this down.”

And he said the costs will rise if heritage rules require the new limestone, mortar and windows to have the same look as the originals.

He noted that the Public Works study still hasn’t examined the inner part of the walls behind the limestone, so there are still unknowns about how much needs to be fixed.

There is still no formal proposal to repair 24 Sussex.

A few weeks ago, the NCC’s CEO, Mark Kristmanson, told this newspaper: “We continue to work with the government on 24 Sussex Drive. I can’t really say very much about it except that I’m encouraged by some of the work our teams have been doing to arrive possible solutions to move the project forward, so we are looking forward to having an opportunity to share those.”

tspears@postmedia.com
twitter.com/TomSpears1

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/24-sussex-is-crumbling-and-now-we-have-the-details

[acottawa]

Tear it down.

[McC]

Just save whatever pieces can be (and are worth being) saved for the architects to dream up new or imaginative ways to incorporate into what is otherwise a completely new build, and turn the management of the official residences of the PM, Speaker and Opposition Leader over to the House of Commons, under the watch of the Board of Internal Economy.

[roger1818]

Tear it down.

I agree. As discussed earlier in this thread, it isn't anywhere close to its original form so shouldn't be considered heritage.

[Casablanca]

How hard do you think it would be to put them in Laurier House? I recognise it would be a smaller property (which would make defense a little harder) and doesn't have the view, but it still has a cool history. Also, with the PM so close to the GG right now it seems like the PM is closer to the GG than Parliament.

[Paul29]

Also, with the PM so close to the GG right now it seems like the PM is closer to the GG than Parliament.

That's no different that when the PM was on Sussex.

[Kitchissippi]

I think Earnscliffe would make a nicer PM's residence than Laurier House, plus it was Sir John A's former residence. The Brits can have the 24 Sussex site in exchange where they can be right beside the French :)

[rocketphish]

Here's how much it costs to run 24 Sussex Drive, even when the prime minister doesn't live there

Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen
Updated: June 1, 2018

https://postmediaottawacitizen2.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/0531-na-sussex.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=800

You might pass 24 Sussex Drive and say to yourself: “I wonder what it costs to keep that place running?”

So we found out — and it’s a bundle.

Some ordinary household bills for the official residence of the prime minister, the one that’s not been lived in since the 2015 federal election, were released by the National Capital Commission through an access-to-information request.

They show how the notoriously drafty old house sucks up energy — and money.

The total expenses for the period from November 2015 through March 2016 were $171,376 — for the building alone, not food or staffing. (The dates are approximate. Not all expenses were billed on the same schedule.)

Energy bills alone topped $50,000 for the first fall and winter that the Trudeau family chose not to live there.

Then there’s the pest-control company, quite a few odds and ends of repairs, and a special fence.

While the official residence has no full-time occupants, it does have official functions now and then.

Mark Kristmanson, the National Capital Commission’s CEO, noted in April: “In the meantime, you should be aware 24 Sussex is used. The staff of the PMO use it. The kitchen is used. It’s been decommissioned as a residence, but it continues to operate as part of our official residences portfolio.”

Let’s take Hydro first, because it’s the biggest bill.

In the five months from October through February, Hydro Ottawa billed the NCC $38,881 for electricity, including tax. The biggest monthly bill was naturally in winter — $10,232 from late January to late February.

More energy: Enbridge Gas billed $11,732 to heat 24 Sussex for five months (though the bills don’t specify whether the water heater is gas or electric.)

The water bill for the five months cost $885. When no one lives there, no one takes long showers.

They paid $425 in total for a series of monthly calls by a pest-control company. But the NCC called the company for one extra visit, to clean up mouse droppings in a basement washroom, for $550. (Visitors take note: The upstairs facilities appear to be mouse-free.)

After that, there’s a list of small-to-middling bills for maintenance that all owners of older homes will recognize. Someone installed a door and put non-skid coating on the stairs ($3,036 for the two jobs). A chimney cleaner did his thing (cheap at $150.) Generator maintenance was $785.

Thermostat repair: $253, on top of an electrical service call bill for a flat $1,000. Later, another $1,000 electrical “trouble-shooting” call, plus $1,290 to replace a defective breaker. Elevator maintenance: $2,280.

Vacuuming the drapes, because you can’t have dusty drapes on Sussex Drive: $491.

Someone was paid $1,500 to wash the windows and eavestroughs, even though Public Works says the eavestroughs aren’t working, and to do the age-old ritual of replacing screens with storm windows.

Carpet and furniture cleaning cost $6,680.

And the owners are keeping one Trudeau family tradition alive.

They installed a diving board for $5,695, so probably a pretty good one. It’s white. Weekly pool maintenance was another $4,500 though it’s unclear what period this covers. It was then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau who endured criticism over having a pool installed at the residence in the first place, four decades ago.

Meanwhile, there was more generator trouble. Three more repair bills to a generator totalled $14,980.

And a final nod to keeping up appearances: The NCC spent $21,250 to install a “rustic fence.”

tspears@postmedia.com
twitter.com/TomSpears1

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/heres-how-much-it-costs-to-run-24-sussex-drive-even-when-the-prime-minister-doesnt-live-there

[roger1818]

The biggest monthly bill was naturally in winter[/B] — $10,232 from late January to late February.

More energy: Enbridge Gas billed $11,732 to heat 24 Sussex for five months (though the bills don’t specify whether the water heater is gas or electric.)

If they have gas heat, why would electricity costs be "naturally" highest in the winter? Unless some of the other buildings have electric heat I guess. Given that they only covered the fall and winter months, I wonder what the bills are like in the summer when the A/C kicks in?

[roger1818]

Let’s take Hydro first, because it’s the biggest bill.

In the five months from October through February, Hydro Ottawa billed the NCC $38,881 for electricity, including tax. The biggest monthly bill was naturally in winter — $10,232 from late January to late February.

More energy: Enbridge Gas billed $11,732 to heat 24 Sussex for five months (though the bills don’t specify whether the water heater is gas or electric.)

If they have gas heat, why would electricity costs be "naturally" highest in the winter? Unless some of the other buildings have electric heat I guess. Given that they only covered the fall and winter months, I wonder what the bills are like in the summer when the A/C kicks in?

[kwoldtimer]

How much occupation/use is 24 Sussex still experiencing? I know the kitchens are still used. I assume security is on site 24/7. Do the Trudeaus use the pool?