Canada’s capital lacks architectural vision

Science museum problems illustrate cultural gap, writes Toon Dreessen.

Starting in 1872, Canada had a chief architect, originally a dominion architect, responsible for the design of many federal buildings. However, that role ended in 1975. In some federal departments, such as the Department of National Defence, the role of the chief architect lives on. Some municipalities, such as Edmonton, have a city architect, to great success.

Today, though, many cities, the province and the federal government lack this sort of vision. They lack a sophisticated, strategic, design-centred approach to architecture as integral to how our cities are built and where we invest our infrastructure dollars.

For this reason, I recently took to Twitter about the Canada Science and Technology Museum’s new Collections Conservation Centre. My comments were directed at how we go about constructing buildings, in particular museums, and valuing architecture in our society. For example, at the mandatory site meeting for the original museum renovation, some of the staff talked about how this wasn’t the project they wanted, and that everyone knew a new museum at LeBreton Flats made more sense. I agreed then, and still do.

My real concern is strategic planning and the procurement model. It’s somewhat nonsensical to invest this much money in a building that is going to run out of space in the short term, as the Citizen’s Tom Spears has reported. Buildings last for generations, and to plan for one that is not going to meet program needs in five years doesn’t seem to make sense.

True, I know only what I’m seeing in the news. If there is a bigger, long-term plan, it would be great for the museum to get it out for public discussion and understanding. Then we can all get behind the funding plans and hold our elected officials accountable to make sure the infrastructure we want gets built and is funded properly.

The key issue isn’t what the building is going to look like. The architects, Diamond Schmitt and KWC Architects, are among Canada’s most respected and talented. The crux of the issue is how we, as a society, are planning our investments in infrastructure. We’ve spent nearly a quarter-billion dollars at the site. If we all know that this isn’t the best site, why are we pouring money into it?

Maybe we should have thought harder about pairing the Science and Technology Museum with LeBreton Flats, site of some of Ottawa’s best industrial history, or the former CFB Rockcliffe lands, adjacent to the National Research Council. Either site would have capitalized on a prime location with other museums and paired with other federal initiatives, demonstrating not only our commitment to archiving, conserving and sharing our science and technology past, but showing how Canada is an innovator in science and technology for the future.

By building a Collections Centre that doesn’t have the lab space we need, and is too small for the near future, we’ve done the equivalent of buying a bike but not bothering to put tires on it. Sure, we can ride around on the rims, and it sort of works; we’ve got a comfy seat, handlebars and a bell we can ring, but it’s not really complete.

It’s not about spending more money, though that’s a part of it. It’s about knowing that the money is there, and planning for it to come, so that the investment we’ve made today is worthwhile. Let’s put that money in place for next year, or in two years, so that we get the building we need. This takes leadership and vision.

We need an overriding policy we can all refer to. We need to engage in a public dialogue about why #architecturematters and how to invest our infrastructure dollars in smart, well-planned and integrated ways. We need a national architecture policy the same way we have policies on art and culture.

Let’s have that public conversation about the role of architecture in creating culture. Maybe we need to think about reviving the role of a chief architect, responsible for leadership, policy and strategic thinking.

What we build says something about who we are as a people, and what we value most. Let’s value architecture as much as we value our music, theatre and writing. Let’s show that infrastructure investment in architecture is more than just a bike without tires.