Why Is Canadian Architecture So Bad?
thewalrus.ca
thewalrus.ca
If you want people to care, meet them half way. A wall of text isn’t that.
The most notable example of this is that for the entirety of his seven year term, the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, has declined to stay at the Official Residence of the PM, 24 Sussex Drive, because it's in such poor condition. He has also not moved an inch to make any repairs whatsoever to bring it up to a standard such that the property could be used. Presumably it would be "unseemly" for a PM to spend money for their indirect benefit.
If the property is so bad and undesirable that it should be replaced instead of renovated, man, I can't believe it would be possible to be done. Canadian governments are so miserly I cannot imagine a government that would spend millions on this project even if it was an elegant Canadian designed building Canadians could all be proud of.
So the property just sits there. Incredible Canadian politicized frugality ensures mediocrity.
- Maintenance for 24 Sussex is under the control of the National Capital Commission (NCC).
- The people who work at the NCC don't like doing their maintenance responsibilities. They like holding festivals. You need to scream and shout to get them to maintain buildings.
- The press likes to jump on any politician screaming and shouting to get renovations.
- The NCC will fight like hell to stop anyone from tearing down one of their buildings. Even if it is a piece of crap with little historic value.
- 24 Sussex was built by a man trying to win back his wife, it wasn't built to last. The government got it on the cheap and used it because it looked nice and had a prime location.
So they can't do the logical thing and replace the building with one built to last hundreds of years. Renovating it would cost a fortune and won't fix the fundamental problems.
https://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/27-developments-that-are-cha...
Some are just... I have no words: https://media1.fdncms.com/thecoast/imager/u/original/5490160...
Come to Washington, DC, and explain to me the glories of K Street NW or of L'Enfant Plaza. Drive through Los Angeles and see how much rises above "inoffensive".
Wow... An article about a visual and real-world medium that contains exactly zero depictions of it's subject matter? Is this parody?
https://www.google.com/search?q=architecture+quebecoise&tbm=...
http://www.essential-architecture.com/IMAGES2/WaterlooMathBu...
A brutalist or Bauhaus building today could look old, ugly, etc. but one can still appreciate its aesthetic in context... A glass condo copy and pasted in CAD software and then rotated to fit a plot of land without consideration for anything... That's ugly.
There's a similar issue in new suburban neighbourhood, where the same floor plan is copied and pasted down a whole street, yet the house on the corner lot lacks windows on wall facing the perpendicular street... It's so disheartening to see.
In any case, I think the article is complaining mostly about the unoriginal glass clones that have gone up over the last twenty years.
It's too prestigious to just use a bunch of creative commons photos.
It's too poor to pay for photos from real photographers.
Architecturally speaking, I had to go to Ottawa once (for an acquisition that ended up not working out) and the contrast with DC was spectacular. It looked like there was no clear plan for the city, despite it being an artificial one (they decided to build a capital there in the 19th century if I recall).
Quebec city left me the feeling that every stone had a story to tell. Also a lot of wedding photography.