It's NOT time to tear down 24 Sussex
 |
| North facade of 24 Sussex Drive |
ACO President Lloyd Alter responds to Paul Wells column in Maclean's
June 29, 2009
June 29, 2009
The Editor
Maclean’s Magazine
Dear Sir or Madam:
24 Sussex Drive should be renovated, not replaced [Paul Wells: It’s time to tear down 24 Sussex]
Writing in Macleans Magazine, Paul Wells starts his article on his proposed replacement of 24 Sussex with a tissue of exaggerations and untruths.
"It has no fire sprinklers. (nor do most houses, they have not been required, and can be retrofitted.) Its walls are lined with asbestos. (no they are not, walls were never lined with asbestos. At worst there is some insulation on heating pipes.) Its plumbing and wiring would not pass muster in any other house in Ottawa. (I seriously doubt that.) It is drafty. (get a caulking gun.) Its air conditioners make a racket. (it has window shakers! what do you expect?) It has, by all accounts, hideous carpeting on the stairs. (horrors! knock it down!)"
He then demeans those of us in “heritage” circles, implying that we think that everybody in a heritage building should be running around dressed up like John A McDonald and never change a thing. Now I may be President of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, and dedicated to preserving our heritage buildings, but I don’t think that they can’t adapt and change with the times. His statement “The rules of heritage property protection have been ignored for almost as long as 24 Sussex has been a famous address.” is referencing some rulebook that nobody ever showed me when I took this gig. It doesn’t exist.
Then Wells says “Just think of the stimulus a new public works project would provide.” Except new construction is 50% materials and equipment (often imported) and 50% labour, while renovation is 75% labour and 25% materials. What provides more stimulus to the Ottawa construction trades?
To top it off, Wells says of his new Prime Minister’s residence, “Make it green.” Right, like hauling the existing building off to the dump is green. Like mixing and transporting concrete and building new is greener than repairing what you have. The greenest brick is the one that is already in the wall, Mr. Wells.
It is the natural way of buildings that different parts age at different rates. So you fix the ventilation and wiring every fifty years, but the walls can last forever. The old windows are built of better wood than you can get these days and can be restored so they don’t leak and the place isn’t drafty. Asbestos can be removed.
Sure, it doesn’t compare to Beaudouin and Lod’s French Embassy next door, few buildings do. Ten million bucks wouldn’t buy the Ambassador’s furniture in it, so a new building isn’t going to compare either.
24 Sussex Drive is a perfectly good house, and can be renovated and brought up to appropriate standards by any number of talented restoration architects in Canada. But since Mr. Wells writes that “I have never set foot in the house”, how would he know?
Writing in Macleans Magazine, Paul Wells starts his article on his proposed replacement of 24 Sussex with a tissue of exaggerations and untruths.
"It has no fire sprinklers. (nor do most houses, they have not been required, and can be retrofitted.) Its walls are lined with asbestos. (no they are not, walls were never lined with asbestos. At worst there is some insulation on heating pipes.) Its plumbing and wiring would not pass muster in any other house in Ottawa. (I seriously doubt that.) It is drafty. (get a caulking gun.) Its air conditioners make a racket. (it has window shakers! what do you expect?) It has, by all accounts, hideous carpeting on the stairs. (horrors! knock it down!)"
He then demeans those of us in “heritage” circles, implying that we think that everybody in a heritage building should be running around dressed up like John A McDonald and never change a thing. Now I may be President of the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, and dedicated to preserving our heritage buildings, but I don’t think that they can’t adapt and change with the times. His statement “The rules of heritage property protection have been ignored for almost as long as 24 Sussex has been a famous address.” is referencing some rulebook that nobody ever showed me when I took this gig. It doesn’t exist.
Then Wells says “Just think of the stimulus a new public works project would provide.” Except new construction is 50% materials and equipment (often imported) and 50% labour, while renovation is 75% labour and 25% materials. What provides more stimulus to the Ottawa construction trades?
To top it off, Wells says of his new Prime Minister’s residence, “Make it green.” Right, like hauling the existing building off to the dump is green. Like mixing and transporting concrete and building new is greener than repairing what you have. The greenest brick is the one that is already in the wall, Mr. Wells.
It is the natural way of buildings that different parts age at different rates. So you fix the ventilation and wiring every fifty years, but the walls can last forever. The old windows are built of better wood than you can get these days and can be restored so they don’t leak and the place isn’t drafty. Asbestos can be removed.
Sure, it doesn’t compare to Beaudouin and Lod’s French Embassy next door, few buildings do. Ten million bucks wouldn’t buy the Ambassador’s furniture in it, so a new building isn’t going to compare either.
24 Sussex Drive is a perfectly good house, and can be renovated and brought up to appropriate standards by any number of talented restoration architects in Canada. But since Mr. Wells writes that “I have never set foot in the house”, how would he know?
Yours sincerely,
Lloyd Alter B.Arch, OAA, TSA
President, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario
Lloyd Alter B.Arch, OAA, TSA
President, Architectural Conservancy of Ontario
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/26/it%E2%80%99s-time-to-tear-down-24-sussex/
Type of News Item: News
