$5 Billion Renovation for the Federal Parliament

[Smallc]

Daniel Liebskind's addition to the Royal Ontario Museum cost $270 million.

I think we're talking a Centre Block sized building.

[g_bambino]

I think we're talking a Centre Block sized building.

Then the numbers still don't jive. A building the size of the centre block should never cost 2.5 billion.

[myata]

In my humble view, happy acceptance of "this is what it costs" is very reminiscent (and not at all unrelated) to "this is what's there to govern us". They could just happen to be different pieces of the same puzzle.

[Smallc]

Then the numbers still don't jive. A building the size of the centre block should never cost 2.5 billion.

That's just one of the buildings. There are other ones.

[Argus]

Daniel Liebskind's addition to the Royal Ontario Museum cost $270 million. Frank Gehry's renovation of the Art Gallery of Ontario cost the same. Both were very complex buildings with highly unusual components.

No, they're actually both quite straightforward compared to the parliament buildings. And I might add there are, I believe seven parliament buildings incl the Langevin Block, which houses the PMO.

[Argus]

Then the numbers still don't jive. A building the size of the centre block should never cost 2.5 billion.

The renovations are for the east and west blocks, the centre block, the library (already completed), the Confederation building (much larger than any of the others), the Langevin Block (housing the PMO) and the South block.

[Smallc]

No, they're actually both quite straightforward compared to the parliament buildings. And I might add there are, I believe seven parliament buildings incl the Langevin Block, which houses the PMO.

yeah, there's also the two Confederation Office Buildings just off of the Hill as well as many smaller buildings (that used to be baracks between the Supreme Court and the Hill. Some are being torn down under this, and some are being modernized and improved.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Smallc

[Army Guy]

Food for thought the est cost of replacing the twin towers in down town new york, which includes 7 strutures including a 1776 ft world trade center,is 6 Bil US dollars. what is it we are getting for 5 bil again...

[Smallc]

Food for thought the est cost of replacing the twin towers in down town new york, which includes 7 strutures including a 1776 ft world trade center,is 6 Bil US dollars. what is it we are getting for 5 bil again...

We're getting what is basically the complete replacement of 2 150 years old buildings and several more hundred year old ones. The work isn't even comparable to the world trade centre. Besides, the renovation budget is only half of the $5B. The other half is for very expensive potential new builds.

[g_bambino]

No, they're actually both quite straightforward compared to the parliament buildings.

No, they're complex in both structure and requirements; not only do the new additions use highly irregular (and thus expensive) structural framing (which leads to the cladding and interiors becoming more expensive), but they both involved extensive renovations to existing heritage structures, as well.

[DrGreenthumb]

"this is what it costs" Yeah they said that about the G20 security too, and it was bullshit then as well.

[Smallc]

"this is what it costs" Yeah they said that about the G20 security too, and it was bullshit then as well.

This isn't a Conservative program. It's already been going on for years.

[Army Guy]

We're getting what is basically the complete replacement of 2 150 years old buildings and several more hundred year old ones. The work isn't even comparable to the world trade centre. Besides, the renovation budget is only half of the $5B. The other half is for very expensive potential new builds.

Your right the work is not comparable, Because in the end the new world trade center buildings will be brand new, state of the art buildings. which will send the same type of message to the world about what they represent. But on the other hand we will have rebuilt historical buildings representing our past.

As for the cost of the new world trade building at 1776 ft tall is 2 Bil US dollars, So your right in saying the other half is for Very expensive potential new buildings.

[Smallc]

Your right the work is not comparable, Because in the end the new world trade center buildings will be brand new, state of the art buildings. which will send the same type of message to the world about what they represent. But on the other hand we will have rebuilt historical buildings representing our past.

You're trying to make the restoration of what are, arguably, the most important buildings in Canada, sound bad? Why, exactly?

[Army Guy]

You're trying to make the restoration of what are, arguably, the most important buildings in Canada, sound bad? Why, exactly?

I agree they are some of the most historical buildings within our nation, however they were built in a time when Canada was a different nation, than she is today, these buildings represent something we are not today. we are not an english colony, under British rule...But rather we have become something different, most of Canada still discuss the role the British monachy should play within our Government, traditions, policies, and direction our country is moving towwards. And i think the majority would agree most of those influences are gradually fadding away...being replaced with something new.

And while i would agree that a few of them should remain, for historical reasons, perhaps it's time for us to build something new....something that will represent Canada of today, a modern new image...

The new world trade center, stands at 1776 ft tall and is estamated to cost only 2 bil...with 2.5 bil at our disposal i'm sure Canada, could come up with a new Canadian image...

I guess my piont is spending 5 bil on governmental buildings with no real change to the face or statement they represent, is not a good investment.

[g_bambino]

I agree they are some of the most historical buildings within our nation, however they were built in a time when Canada was a different nation, than she is today, these buildings represent something we are not today. we are not an english colony, under British rule...But rather we have become something different, most of Canada still discuss the role the British monachy should play within our Government, traditions, policies, and direction our country is moving towwards. And i think the majority would agree most of those influences are gradually fadding away...being replaced with something new.

English colony? British monarchy? What?

Parliament Hill was developed as a parliamentary precinct only just before Confederation (opening in 1866), the time widely considered to be the "birth" of Canada as a country. The present Centre Block was completed in 1927, the year after the Balfour Declaration said Canada was equal in status to the United Kingdom, and its sculpture and ornamentation has been worked on continuously ever since, through the passage of the Statute of Westminster, debates on Canada's participation in the Second World War, the Centennial of Confederation, the signing of the Canada Act, the 9/11 memorial service; even today there are still corbels waiting to be carved, windows that haven't had their stained glass installed, and empty niches needing sculptures and plaques. So, it's a mystery to me how you can argue simultaneously that the British monarchy still has anything to do with Canada and it and colonialism are represented by the structures in our capitol.

And while i would agree that a few of them should remain, for historical reasons, perhaps it's time for us to build something new....something that will represent Canada of today, a modern new image...

The new world trade center, stands at 1776 ft tall and is estamated to cost only 2 bil...with 2.5 bil at our disposal i'm sure Canada, could come up with a new Canadian image...

The World Trade Center is not the seat of the United States government.

[corr.]

Edited November 10, 2010 by g_bambino

[Army Guy]

English colony? British monarchy? What?

Parliament Hill was developed as a parliamentary precinct only just before Confederation (opening in 1866), the time widely considered to be the "birth" of Canada as a country.

And yet we were still very much under British rule until the just after the 1920's, and even today we still base most of our government type, policies, traditions,money, commander and chief etc etc under the British system, they still have influence over our nation, one way or the other.

The present Centre Block was completed in 1927,

the orginal Center block was destroyed by fire , it was completed at the same time as the rest of the buildings.

the year after the Balfour Declaration said Canada was equal in status to the United Kingdom,

And yet the British still had great influence over our nation.

So, it's a mystery to me how you can argue simultaneously that the British monarchy still has anything to do with Canada and it and colonialism are represented by the structures in our capitol.

Are you saying that those buildings do not reflect British designs of the times, if not british then what, I mean it was the Queen herself you chose Ottawa as the Capitol, and the site for parliment , and chose the architects how much more influence can you have.....are they french design, italian what ?. Are you saying that Britain did not have a major influence for a major portion of our history? And that influence is not part of our colonialism....Shit

The World Trade Center is not the seat of the United States government

No it's not , but the new trade center is a powerful reminder and image to not only the American people but to the world. I was using this as an example of just what 5 BIL could build.

[g_bambino]

And yet we were still very much under British rule until the just after the 1920's, and even today we still base most of our government type, policies, traditions,money, commander and chief etc etc under the British system, they still have influence over our nation, one way or the other.

Are you saying that those buildings do not reflect British designs of the times, if not british then what, I mean it was the Queen herself you chose Ottawa as the Capitol, and the site for parliment , and chose the architects how much more influence can you have.....are they french design, italian what ?. Are you saying that Britain did not have a major influence for a major portion of our history? And that influence is not part of our colonialism

After 1867, we were not "very much" under British rule in much except for foreign policy, and then, by the end of the First World War, the British government's influence over even that was significantly waning. Those elements of our present traditions and system of government that have British origins (which don't include our dollar (as compared to the pound)) are there pretty much because many of those who previously inhabited and ran Canada were British both by law and personal identification, not because Westminster forced these things upon us.

How Parliament Hill came to be is a perfect illustration of that: The architects were not chosen by Queen Victoria on the advice of ministers in London; they were found through a competition run by the Canadian Department of Public Works, whose officials selected the entries they did (the Centre Block was in a separate category to the East and West Blocks) not only because they used a derivation of a style that was popular in the UK at the time, but also because that style was the height of modernity (for its day) and the designs, which combined neo-Gothic, Italianate, and Richardson Romanesque with unique Canadian tweaks, fit with the rugged Canadian landscape and would identify Canada in stark contrast to the neo-Classicism of Washington. Architecture with elements of British tastes picked by Canadians.

Because many Canadians used to be culturally British and imported certain aspects of British life to Canada doesn't mean, in any way, that Britain still has influence over this country or that parts of Canada with British roots aren't Canadian, any more than the French aspects of our culture mean we're under the influence of France.

No it's not , but the new trade center is a powerful reminder and image to not only the American people but to the world. I was using this as an example of just what 5 BIL could build.

You did, but implied by doing so that we should be spending $5 billion on a new parliament, instead of renovating the existing one, because the Americans have a state of the art complex of office towers and our legislative building is old. The new World Trade Centre may be going up in the United States, but the buildings of the US capitol are from the end of the 18th century, and designed by a Frenchman in a neo-Greco-Roman style, to boot. Should those be replaced, as well?

[c/e]

Edited November 10, 2010 by g_bambino

[Army Guy]

After 1867, we were not "very much" under British rule in much except for foreign policy, and then, by the end of the First World War, the British government's influence over even that was significantly waning.

Your right, we were governed by Canadians, But our history is full of examples of those very Canadians having strong ties to the Crown, and British government, All they had to do was ask and they knew we would follow, Boar war adn WWI are prime examples....in fact they did not have to ask English Canada jumped at the chance to serve Britian.

We as a nation were still very dependant on Britain, our foreign policy as you mentioned was pretty much directed by Britian, along with our small professional military forces which were commanded by British Generals. In there eyes we were still a colony, regardless of what independence we thought we had...

Those elements of our present traditions and system of government that have British origins (which don't include our dollar (as compared to the pound))

Your right our dollar back then was a Canadian concept, but even today, as most British Colonies it still reflects our British history, as in it is laced with pictures of the British Monarchy, still showing they have influence in our Canadian culture.

How Parliament Hill came to be is a perfect illustration of that: The architects were not chosen by Queen Victoria on the advice of ministers in London; they were found through a competition run by the Canadian Department of Public Works, whose officials selected the entries they did (the Centre Block was in a separate category to the East and West Blocks) not only because they used a derivation of a style that was popular in the UK at the time, but also because that style was the height of modernity (for its day) and the designs, which combined neo-Gothic, Italianate, and Richardson Romanesque with unique Canadian tweaks, fit with the rugged Canadian landscape and would identify Canada in stark contrast to the neo-Classicism of Washington. Architecture with elements of British tastes picked by Canadians.

Introduction

from Hand Book to the Parliamentary and Departmental Buildings, Canada, by Joseph Bureau (1867)

“Ottawa having been selected by Her Majesty as the Capital of Canada, the sum of £75,000 was voted by the Legislative Assembly, for the erection of a Parliament House, and a premium of $1000 offered for the best design not to exceed that amount. Messrs. Fuller and Jones were the successful architects, and although the design was considered by many as too costly, responsible contractors were found who tendered within the government vote.”

My link

Not according to the above source , and perhaps i'm reading it wrong, But it was British legislative Assembly that voted in an amount of 75,000 British pounds for the construction of the parliament house, one would assume that they also had a say in how the money was spent, and it was them that placed Mr Fuller to oversee the project. So my post of the Queen had chosen was wrong, my bad...but was not that far off.

The Canadian side of the house did offer a 1000 dollars for the best design, and it was them that picked the contractors...

Because many Canadians used to be culturally British and imported certain aspects of British life to Canada doesn't mean, in any way, that Britain still has influence over this country or that parts of Canada with British roots aren't Canadian, any more than the French aspects of our culture mean we're under the influence of France.

And while many of those Canadians where EX pat British citizens, which still to a great extent consider Britain the mother land , how could we not say that Britian did not have an influence over our nation, because we had at the time a pice of paper saying we were Canadians, all they had to do was ask , infact in alot of cases they did not have to ask but Canadians ran to Britian and Asked what can we do...Such as the Boar war and WWI...It was a different time, and although they were Canadians they were British first...like you said we did not have control over our foeeign policy until after the 20's, our Military forces commanded by British generals, there must have been a tremedous British influence, there....

You did, but implied by doing so that we should be spending $5 billion on a new parliament, instead of renovating the existing one, because the Americans have a state of the art complex of office towers and our legislative building is old. The new World Trade Centre may be going up in the United States, but the buildings of the US capitol are from the end of the 18th century, and designed by a Frenchman in a neo-Greco-Roman style, to boot. Should those be replaced, as well?

I did say that yes, i like some others here think 5 Bil dollars for the entire project is alot, even when we are talking about rebuilding these strutures to todays codes and standards, I used the World trade buildings as an example of what 5 bil gets you...and these new buildings are very impressive. to clearly show the differences, one one hand we get these historical buildings brought up to todays code, on the other hand the sky is the limit, which could reflect Canada today...

but the buildings of the US capitol are from the end of the 18th century, and designed by a Frenchman in a neo-Greco-Roman style, to boot. Should those be replaced, as well?

If they where in the shape ours are today, i would say that is an option....

[g_bambino]

Your right our dollar back then was a Canadian concept, but even today, as most British Colonies it still reflects our British history, as in it is laced with pictures of the British Monarchy, still showing they have influence in our Canadian culture.

The British monarchy has nothing to do with our currency except for the fact that the Queen of Canada who appears on our coins and $20 notes happens to be the same woman who's Queen of the UK; does Canada have an influence on British culture because pictures of our Queen are on their money?

Not according to the above source , and perhaps i'm reading it wrong, But it was British legislative Assembly that voted in an amount of 75,000 British pounds for the construction of the parliament house, one would assume that they also had a say in how the money was spent, and it was them that placed Mr Fuller to oversee the project.

You are reading it wrong: The legislative assembly referred to was that of the Province of Canada. And, as I said, the project was run by the Department of Public Works:

On May 7th, 1859, the Department of Public Works published a Notice to Architects, calling for anyone who was interested to submit drawings and plans of their design no later than August 1st the same year... Two judges were appointed to choose the winners: Samuel Keefer, the deputy commissioner of the Department of Public Works and Frederick Preston Rubidge.

Public Works and Government Services Canada; "Who Would Design it?"

Early in 1861, Public Works reported that $1,424,882.55 — more than two-and-a-half times the original estimate — had been spent. In September the site was closed down and the partly finished walls were covered with tarpaulins to protect them from the weather. 1,300 men were thrown out of work. A commission of inquiry was formed in June, 1862 to find out what had gone wrong. The government was determined to solve the management problems and forge ahead.

Public Works and Government Services Canada; "Construction, 1859-1916"

I did say that yes, i like some others here think 5 Bil dollars for the entire project is alot, even when we are talking about rebuilding these strutures to todays codes and standards, I used the World trade buildings as an example of what 5 bil gets you...and these new buildings are very impressive. to clearly show the differences, one one hand we get these historical buildings brought up to todays code, on the other hand the sky is the limit, which could reflect Canada today...

You have to first be clear that the $5 billion figure is for a project that takes in much more than the renovations of the three buildings on Parliament Hill. With that in mind, I still find the sum to be exorbitant. But, the cost of fixing up the parliament buildings, specifically, almost seems secondary to you, as though no price could be cheap enough when these structures aren't worth saving in the first place, simply because they're from another time when Canadians had a different identity. That I can't agree with. I'm all for prudent spending, but I don't view Canada's built heritage as worthless and foreign to the country; in fact, I see historically significant architecture as an absolutely integral part of our cultural fabric that's well worth investing in.

If they where in the shape ours are today, i would say that is an option....

Well, if they are in better shape than ours, I bet its because more money has been spent on their upkeep over the years than has been put towards our government buildings in the same period. Canadians do seem to be depressingly miserly when it comes to spending on such things.