24 Sussex Drive: Why It Matters Part 1
24 Sussex Drive, the currently unused (and semi-derelict) official residence of the Prime Minister of Canada, has been again lately. On February 21st, hosted a panel discussion on the building鈥檚 future at the 杏吧原创 Dominion-Chalmers Centre. Much good sense was spoken by panelists Mark Brandt, Sheila Copps, Marc Denhez and Patricia Kell. In fact, good sense dominated the conversation so completely that arguments in favour of demolishing the house barely surfaced at all. But those arguments are out there: on social media, in news comment sections, and by the water cooler. And they too need to be heard, if only to point out why they are wrong. I鈥檒l explore this theme over at least a couple of blogs. I鈥檒l start by considering the historical importance (or not) of the house.
The most perplexing argument against renovating 24 Sussex is the claim that it isn鈥檛 actually a historically important building. It was just an ordinary house, this argument goes. It didn鈥檛 even become the PM鈥檚 residence until 1951 !
That date is correct. But let鈥檚 put it into perspective: Canada has only been a country since 1867. In 1951, the country was 84 years old. Now, it鈥檚 157 years old. In other words, 24 Sussex has been the official residence of our Prime Minister for nearly 50% of the country鈥檚 history. That鈥檚 a pretty substantial slice of the nation鈥檚 existence.
Moreover, it was never an ordinary house. It was always an exceptional one, built on a spectacularly elevated site where three rivers 鈥 the Ottawa, the Rideau and the Gatineau 鈥 converge. It was built in 1866 for lumber baron (and later MP) Joseph Currier. It was sold in 1901 to another lumber baron and MP (and later senator), William Edwards. It remained in his family until the Canadian government appropriated it in 1943. To be clear: any surviving confederation-era house built for lumber-industry titans would be of enormous historical importance to Ottawa. After all, the place was founded as a lumber town. This particular house also happens to have been the official residence of 52% of our Prime Ministers (although not all of those have resided in it). How can anyone claim that the building is not historically important?
Ah, the sceptics say, but this isn鈥檛 really the house that was built in 1866. It was altered by its second owner, and changed even more by the government in the 1940s. It鈥檚 not really an 鈥渙ld鈥 building, and it doesn鈥檛 deserve heritage status.
The best-known proponent of this argument has been a former resident of the house, Maureen McTeer, who lived there while her husband, Joe Clark, was Prime Minister in 1979-80. In 2015, she : “The original home looked totally different than the one we were left with after 1950. I find it quite fascinating that somehow people think it’s a heritage building.”
The assumption here is that a building is only a 鈥渉eritage building鈥 if its appearance is essentially unchanged from the day it was built. This belief has no connection to reality. The story of an old building is a book with many chapters. All of those chapters are equally valid, important and integral parts of the building鈥檚 history. There is no single moment in a building鈥檚 life that alone represents its 鈥渞eal鈥 identity. 24 Sussex was built in 1866. Canada was founded one year later. Both look very different today, because that鈥檚 what time does. But both are still the genuine article.
Imagine the implications if we accepted original appearance as the defining characteristic of 鈥渉eritage鈥. Canterbury Cathedral, where no visible trace remains of the original Saxon church, would not be considered a heritage building. The Great Mosque of Cordoba, which has been enlarged and altered so much that you can barely discern the original core, would not be considered a heritage building. Even the Great Pyramid of Giza, stripped of almost every stone that a viewer 4500 years ago would have seen, would not qualify for heritage status. This simplistic definition of 鈥渉eritage鈥 paints the whole of built history into a ridiculously small corner.
There are other, more nuanced arguments against retaining 24 Sussex Drive. I think they鈥檙e wrong too, and I鈥檒l explore why in a later blog.