Indigenous Peoples Space [100 Wellington St]

[rocketphish]

It's time we started a dedicated thread for this building...

[rocketphish]

Government seeking public input on use of former U.S. embassy building

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: August 8, 2016 | Last Updated: August 8, 2016 5:51 PM EDT



If you think the former American embassy at 100 Wellington St. across from Parliament Hill would make a dandy national portrait gallery, you’ll soon have an opportunity to make that case.

The federal government wants to turn the embassy building, vacant since 1998, into a “special destination” for Canadians, Rob Wright, an assistant deputy minister at Public Services and Procurement Canada, told journalists during a media tour Monday.

To find out what Canadians think that destination should be, the department will hold a town-hall meeting, webcast live, at the nearby Sir John A. Macdonald Building on Aug. 18 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. An online survey will be available at that time at http://www.canada.ca/100WellingtonStreet until Sept. 9.

The government has a “high-level list” of possible uses, Wright said, but they won’t be revealed until Aug. 18. He declined to say whether a portrait gallery is on the list, but it’s a solid bet: that was the intended use of the former embassy until the Conservatives were elected in 2006 and cancelled the project.

“I don’t want to scoop myself,” Wright said coyly. “You’ll have to come out on the 18th of August.”

Nor is there any timeline yet for the project. “We’re focused on hearing from Canadians on how they want to use the building,” Wright said. Once the consultation ends on Sept. 9, there will be a period of analysis, he said, with the results made public “sometime in the coming months.”

That suggests the government might announce the former embassy’s future use next year as a Canada 150 initiative, but Wright wouldn’t go there Monday.

“We’re at step one of the process,” he said. “A timeline will come out after we have a use that I’m sure will be exciting.”

Wright said the 1,605-square-metre embassy building — built in 1931-32 and designed by Cass Gilbert, the American architect who designed the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington — is a “keystone building within the parliamentary precinct.

“In fact, if the parliamentary precinct were a Monopoly game, this would be Park Place,” he said. “This building has it all. It has an ideal location, it’s an architectural gem and it’s got a very special history.”

Ottawa Centre MP Catherine McKenna, the minister of the environment and climate change, said she was “thrilled we’re now moving forward to make this heritage building a public space Ottawans and visitors alike will use and be proud of.?

“I know how important this is to our community, so I look forward to the public consultation and to working on behalf of the people of the National Capital Region to make sure this space reaches its potential,”? she said.?

Done in Italian neoclassical style, the building was the first embassy built in Ottawa, said Thierry Montpetit, a senior director in the department’s parliamentary precinct branch — and one of the first the Americans built anywhere.

Hazardous materials and outdated mechanical and electrical systems were removed and other demolition work done as part of the portrait gallery project. That cost about $800,000 — part of $9 million the former Liberal government spent on the portrait gallery project before the Tories pulled the plug in 2006.

That money wasn’t wasted, Wright said. “That investment would have had to be done regardless of future use.” Since then, the department has spent an average of $200,000 a year on upkeep.

The building today has been largely gutted to concrete walls and ceilings, with exposed wiring and plumbing. Yet some of its former grandeur is still evident.

White marble from Vermont adorns the lobby, the walls in the ambassador’s quarters are done in oak panelling and his private office, which offers an extraordinary view of the Parliament Buildings through floor-to-ceiling windows, is finished in pine, a nod to Ottawa’s lumbering history.

“Because this space was so special, the Americans invested heavily in the craftsmanship and quality of the architecture,” Montpetit said.

No matter what public use is ultimately chosen, Wright said, there will need to be “at least a small addition” to make the building universally accessible and house modern heating, cooling and electrical services.

The pending embassy building project is just the latest in a series of rehabilitation projects the department has undertaken in recent years. It completed work on the Sir John A. Macdonald Building last year and the Wellington Building last month.

Work on the West Block will be substantially complete by December 2017, Wright said. Over the summer of 2018, occupants of the Centre Block will be moved to the West Block and the former Government Conference Centre, which is also undergoing major renovations and repairs. That will trigger a decade of work to fix up the Centre Block and modernize its systems.

dbutler@postmedia.com
twitter.com/ButlerDon



http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...bassy-building

[rocketphish]

PWGSC's 100 Wellington Street consultation site:

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/citepar...treet-eng.html

[acottawa]

PM residence

[c_speed3108]

In the short term perhaps the space could be whipped into something for Canada 150 next year.


In the longer term I am not sure. The portrait gallery idea has never excited me.

[Admiral Nelson]

The portrait gallery idea is terrific - and I'm even more enthusiastic now that I've seen those pictures of the interior of the former embassy.

1. It would make the parliamentary precinct more interesting. It adds a public destination to the NCC's triangle of institutions/Confederation Boulevard. Good for tourism = good for the capital. I can't fathom why we'd waste this opportunity on a nonpublic use.

2. We have lots of art in long-term storage, and Canadians often complain of having little history/culture - let's display more of it!

3. The historic building and prized location could make it Ottawa's answer to the Mauritshuis in Holland:

[acottawa]

Not many cities have portrait galleries. In those that do it is among the least popular attractions. I think portraits that have artistic merit should be in the national gallery. Portraits that have no artistic merit but depict someone of historical significance should be in the relevant national museum (history, war, etc.).

This was one of those projects Chrétien thought up in his last 6 months in office (but not in the previous 9.5 years in office). Nobody had been clamouring for a portrait gallery. Martin mothballed it as soon as he took office. Harper toyed with it and eventually cancelled it. This seems to have more to do with anti-Harper sentiment than any real need.

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Not many cities have portrait galleries. In those that do it is among the least popular attractions.

I think portraits that have artistic merit should be in the national gallery. Portraits that have no artistic merit but depict someone of historical significance should be in the relevant national museum (history, war, etc.).

This was one of those projects Chrétien thought up in his last 6 months in office (but not in the previous 9.5 years in office). Nobody had been clamouring for a portrait gallery. Martin mothballed it as soon as he took office. Harper toyed with it and eventually cancelled it. This seems to have more to do with anti-Harper sentiment than any real need.

There's a lot to unpack here, but I disagree 100%.

1) London's portrait gallery is stunning and considered an excellent attraction. Your argument was raised in decades past to oppose the NAC, the Gallery and the Museum of Civilization. Of course no one now thinks of them as unnecessary.

2) The federal govt has a massive mothballed collection of paintings because there isn't display room anywhere for it. And some collections are more than the sum of their parts, and shouldn't be fragmented across other museums.

3) I recall a lot of disappointed people in Ottawa when Martin suspended the project for external political reasons. Harper killed it because he was anything but a nation builder.

I resent your suggestion that nobody wants the gallery and that its backers only want it to give Harper the finger. And I'm shocked that any Ottawans would oppose this idea.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

There's a lot to unpack here, but I disagree 100%.

1) London's portrait gallery is stunning and considered an excellent attraction. Your argument was raised in decades past to oppose the NAC, the Gallery and the Museum of Civilization. Of course no one now thinks of them as unnecessary.

2) The federal govt has a massive mothballed collection of paintings because there isn't display room anywhere for it. And some collections are more than the sum of their parts, and shouldn't be fragmented across other museums.

3) I recall a lot of disappointed people in Ottawa when Martin suspended the project for external political reasons. Harper killed it because he was anything but a nation builder.

I resent your suggestion that nobody wants the gallery and that its backers only want it to give Harper the finger. And I'm shocked that any Ottawans would oppose this idea.

The NPG in London, despite its prime location and being one of the only free attractions in London attracts only 2 million visitors, compared to 7 million for the British museum, 6 million for the national gallery, 5 million for the natural history museum. It may be stunning, but is is not particularly popular. There is no portrait gallery in Paris, Rome, Berlin or New York, yet these cities enjoy a rich culture.

If in fact the collection is "massive" and cannot be fragmented, then the Wellington street location (which is small by museum standards) would not be a suitable location.

I think your claim that Harper cancelled it because he is "not a nation builder" reinforces my point that proponents see this in highly politicized terms.

[YOWflier]

I don't feel strongly either way about a portrait gallery, but I agree with ac about the apparent (non) popularity of these things. In all my travels, and with all the sights I've endeavoured to see, it never once even crossed my mind to enter one. But that's just me ... or is it?

[citydwlr]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

I don't feel strongly either way about a portrait gallery, but I agree with ac about the apparent (non) popularity of these things. In all my travels, and with all the sights I've endeavoured to see, it never once even crossed my mind to enter one. But that's just me ... or is it?

It's not just you; I have never ventured to see a gallery of portraiture in all my travels. It's just not my thing; but, that's just me -- to each his/her own.

I'm also indifferent to the portrait gallery option. It's been in the public's consciousness for so long though, I honestly think most people just expect it to become the new National Portrait Gallery anyways...

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

There's a lot to unpack here, but I disagree 100%.

1) London's portrait gallery is stunning and considered an excellent attraction. Your argument was raised in decades past to oppose the NAC, the Gallery and the Museum of Civilization. Of course no one now thinks of them as unnecessary.

2) The federal govt has a massive mothballed collection of paintings because there isn't display room anywhere for it. And some collections are more than the sum of their parts, and shouldn't be fragmented across other museums.

3) I recall a lot of disappointed people in Ottawa when Martin suspended the project for external political reasons. Harper killed it because he was anything but a nation builder.

I resent your suggestion that nobody wants the gallery and that its backers only want it to give Harper the finger. And I'm shocked that any Ottawans would oppose this idea.

Has there ever been a proposal for a public project in Ottawa that DIDN'T elicit local opposition from some quarter or another? And then they strike committees....

[Mikeed]

Every time I have ventured to this property, I feel the special location at the intersection between Parliament and the PMO/PCO headquarters calls for really only on purpose. A Constitutional Hall- a location where the Constitutional documents (real or copies) can be put on display.

I would really like a building that gives Citizens the opportunity to see copies of the BNA Act of 1867 and the Charter. But also explain the importance of the other Constitutional documents from our entrenched source documents of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

And the foundation of law that stretches back into the mists of time given from an continuous justice system through the Crown that includes the Magna Carta.

The preamble may therefore entrench key British documents like the Act of Settlement, 1701, the English Bill of Rights, 1689, and the Magna Carta. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that Canadians cannot claim specific rights mentioned in those documents, and that their provisions with regard to civil rights or the constitutional order are to be taken foundationally.

But- can we stomach having this Hall in a former American Embassy? Does this matter?

Also, I would an Honour guard open to any First Responder or CF member from across Canada. And no allowing easy vandalism!

And expose into Confederation and Constitutional documents- boy that surely couldn't go wrong!

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

There's a lot to unpack here, but I disagree 100%.

1) London's portrait gallery is stunning and considered an excellent attraction. Your argument was raised in decades past to oppose the NAC, the Gallery and the Museum of Civilization. Of course no one now thinks of them as unnecessary.

2) The federal govt has a massive mothballed collection of paintings because there isn't display room anywhere for it. And some collections are more than the sum of their parts, and shouldn't be fragmented across other museums.

3) I recall a lot of disappointed people in Ottawa when Martin suspended the project for external political reasons. Harper killed it because he was anything but a nation builder.

I resent your suggestion that nobody wants the gallery and that its backers only want it to give Harper the finger. And I'm shocked that any Ottawans would oppose this idea.

Extremely well expressed. And I couldn't agree more.

One additional point:

Portrait galleries are of interest to the citizens of the nation where they reside.

While scores of foreign tourists may flock to galleries displaying art and antiquities from international sources, they would not be attracted in any large measure to portraits of dead people, who are by definition, foreigners to them.

So drawing statistical comparisons, as has been done in this thread, are invalid.

Furthermore, beyond Trudeau the first, Gretzky and maybe Celine; what Canadian would have a suitably high international profile to draw interest in their portrait?

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

Every time I have ventured to this property, I feel the special location at the intersection between Parliament and the PMO/PCO headquarters calls for really only on purpose. A Constitutional Hall- a location where the Constitutional documents (real or copies) can be put on display.

I would really like a building that gives Citizens the opportunity to see copies of the BNA Act of 1867 and the Charter. But also explain the importance of the other Constitutional documents from our entrenched source documents of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

And the foundation of law that stretches back into the mists of time given from an continuous justice system through the Crown that includes the Magna Carta.

And expose into Confederation and Constitutional documents- boy that surely couldn't go wrong!

Fantastic idea - a museum on our Constitution and other foundational documents like the Charter would fill a huge gap in what's available from our national museums (and in national awareness, more generally). The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and the National Archives in Washington do this very well for the US.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

Every time I have ventured to this property, I feel the special location at the intersection between Parliament and the PMO/PCO headquarters calls for really only on purpose. A Constitutional Hall- a location where the Constitutional documents (real or copies) can be put on display.

I would really like a building that gives Citizens the opportunity to see copies of the BNA Act of 1867 and the Charter. But also explain the importance of the other Constitutional documents from our entrenched source documents of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

And the foundation of law that stretches back into the mists of time given from an continuous justice system through the Crown that includes the Magna Carta.




But- can we stomach having this Hall in a former American Embassy? Does this matter?

Also, I would an Honour guard open to any First Responder or CF member from across Canada. And no allowing easy vandalism!

And expose into Confederation and Constitutional documents- boy that surely couldn't go wrong!

Love this idea too!!

No need for a physical portrait gallery -- scan any relevant portraits into a website, and done.

On the other hand, there's value in being able to see the legal & historical foundation of our country, exactly as it was written, including type of paper and weight of the pen -- nuances that would be harder to convey online.

[eltodesukane]

z

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

A portrait gallery can fit perfectly in a simple website.
It's cheaper, and more accessible to all.

Were you sipping a soylent while you wrote that?

Vibrancy is anathema to efficiency. To paraphrase a lesser known Jane Jacobs quote, if you want efficiency, nothing's more efficient than a rock.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by gjhall

Were you sipping a soylent while you wrote that?

Vibrancy is anathema to efficiency. To paraphrase a lesser known Jane Jacobs quote, if you want efficiency, nothing's more efficient than a rock.

Efficiency is "useful work per quantity of energy". Since a rock does no useful work, pretty much everything would be more efficient than a rock.

I'm not sure how the most boring possible museum (black and white photographs of dead white people, possibly the odd mediocre oil painting of a dead white person) that would likely be open for dentists hours and closed on Mondays would contribute to the vibrancy of the city.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Mikeed

Every time I have ventured to this property, I feel the special location at the intersection between Parliament and the PMO/PCO headquarters calls for really only on purpose. A Constitutional Hall- a location where the Constitutional documents (real or copies) can be put on display.

I would really like a building that gives Citizens the opportunity to see copies of the BNA Act of 1867 and the Charter. But also explain the importance of the other Constitutional documents from our entrenched source documents of the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

And the foundation of law that stretches back into the mists of time given from an continuous justice system through the Crown that includes the Magna Carta.

I like this idea a lot more than the national portrait museum. I agree with what some others wrote that a national portrait museum seems less compelling than other options. Though maybe I just don’t get the appeal of this particular attraction or maybe I’m just not the target audience.

I appreciate the fact that we have a huge collection of portraits. Fair enough. But to me that fact doesn't in and of itself justify using such a prime location for a portrait museum. I would bet a good sum of money that any such museum would end up being dead as a doornail (even by Ottawa standards) within 1 year of opening so I’d recommend placing it somewhere where its deadness won’t be so conspicuous.

I like the idea of a constitution something or other space, though I think we may need to add something to that to properly fill out the entire space. Maybe some sort of a comparative constitutional section, comparing and contrasting our constitution with various other foundational documents of other countries? Maybe some sort of a constitutional convention historical re-enactment? I don’t know, just throwing some ideas out there.