The Foundation

By considering factors and environments of the past, present and future, a set of strong principles has been established to guide the development of the House of Commons requirements.

 A. Historical Considerations

Like any institution, Canada’s Parliament has its own distinct history. Much of this history — and the essential elements of our democratic system — are reflected in the architecture and design of the Parliament Buildings.



A Place of Symbolism and Celebration

When Canada became a country in 1867 under the terms of the British North America Act, the focus of the celebrations was on Parliament Hill.² The new Parliament and government buildings, designed in High Victorian Gothic Revival style, were just nearing completion in Ottawa and the forecourt was a perfect place for public gatherings.

The buildings and grounds reflected the significance of Parliamentary democracy to the Canadian identity. On the highest central ground was the Centre Block. Attached to the Centre Block was the still-unfinished shell of the Parliamentary Library. To either side of the forecourt, on slightly lower ground, were the government buildings — the East and West Blocks.³ Over the next 15 years, the grounds were transformed into one of the most impressive and picturesque landscapes in Canada. The entire complex was given clear definition by the natural escarpment on the north, east and west sides. On the south side, an intricate stone fence with wrought iron gates separated Parliament from the burgeoning city. The Precinct’s identity was reinforced by the strength of the Gothic architecture and the picturesque landscape, attributes that quickly became visible symbols of the young country.



British Precedent

The designs of the Centre Block closely followed the British precedent. Continuity and tradition have always played a significant role in the workings of Parliament, perhaps because people have realized that democratic institutions are not only important but also fragile.⁴

As with the Westminster model, the 1867 layout provided a clear hierarchy of space. At the heart of the Centre Block were the two Chambers — the Senate and the House of Commons — where Government and Opposition Members faced each other across central aisles. Next in the hierarchy were committee rooms and facilities for Officers and Members of Parliament. Particular attention was given to providing logical patterns of access for the public and the media. A reporters’ gallery overlooked the Chamber, and the public had direct access to the Chamber galleries and the 24 committee rooms.


 
The Growth of the Country

Accommodation pressures were evident almost immediately. Canada was growing quickly.⁵ The number of Parliamentarians increased proportionately, as did pressures to increase the number of staff. By the 1880s, the buildings were crowded, even though all available space in basements and attics had been pressed into use.As government’s roles and responsibilities expanded, Members required additional office space. To ease space pressures, departmental functions were gradually moved out of the Centre Block.⁶ Growing government departments continued to occupy the East and West Blocks and, despite an addition to the West Block, more space was still required. The Langevin Block was built for that purpose on the south side of Wellington Street in the Second Empire style of its urban neighbours without trying to compete with the Gothic Revival identity of the Hill.

Despite space pressures, the logic of the original designs remained evident. The Parliamentary Precinct was a clearly defined enclave, set within a larger Crown land preserve extending from Bank Street on the west to Sussex Street on the east and Wellington Street on the south. Majors Hill Park extended the landscape of Parliament Hill to the east side of the Rideau Canal. Links were also established outside the Precinct, to the estate of the Governor General at Rideau Hall and to federal parklands that were being developed throughout the city. The romantic style and setting of these federal projects were notably different from the classicism and formality of the government buildings in Washington, D.C.
 


Contested Boundaries

The early years of the 20th century were turbulent for the Parliamentary Precinct. In 1907, plans to expand the Precinct eastward were undermined when a key parcel of land was purchased by the Grand Trunk Railway to build the Château Laurier Hotel. Soon after, the Daly Building site was sold to private interests. Forced to look west for expansion, the government began to expropriate houses and commercial properties west of Bank Street and to buy up property to the south along Elgin Street. This further blurred the boundaries between Crown and Town and upset the balance between official (government) and unofficial (civic) Ottawa.

In 1916 the Centre Block burned to the ground, reducing to ruins one of the key elements of federal identity. The axial orientation of the reconstructed Centre Block diminished the traditional view of the Precinct as a picturesque enclave.⁸

Departmental accommodation in this period became increasingly haphazard, with little input from Parliamentarians on the urban development surrounding the Hill. Private sector interests put up speculative high rise buildings on Sparks and Queen Streets, and leased office space to the government.

In 1927, matters came to a head following construction of the Victoria Building on the south side of Wellington, facing Parliament Hill. Developed by the private sector, the building was considered particularly inappropriate in design, scale and setting. Anxious to reassert some control over their environment, Parliamentarians established the Federal District Commission, providing it with a staff and a significant budget.


Taking Control

The period from the late 1920s to the late 1960s saw a return of some semblance of order and consistency to the development of both the Parliamentary Precinct and the larger governmental presence within the city.

The newly constructed Centre Block had sufficient space to address the growing needs of Members and to provide additional committee rooms and support spaces. While space pressures were inevitable, planners responded by moving departmental or support functions out of the key central buildings.

Taking control of its expansion plans, the government made significant progress towards the development of a western precinct with construction of the Confederation and Justice buildings. The buildings, designed to complement the architectural style of the Precinct, provided convenient accommodation for government departments helping to relieve some of the space pressure on Parliament Hill.⁹

A few years later, a new Supreme Court building was built. Although the building was designed in a more modern style than the Parliament Buildings, its high-pitched copper roof maintained the federal identity. Additional government accommodation was provided on the south side of Wellington Street, in buildings more in line with their urban neighbours. Once again, there was an emphasis on maintaining a separation between the north and south sides of Wellington Street.

At the same time, the city’s parkway system was revived and extended, reinforcing the image of the national capital as a place of picturesque landscapes and a unique approach to urban design.

In the early 1960s, the pressures on Parliamentary accommodation were addressed by converting the West Block from a government building to one for use by Parliamentarians. Use of the West Block maintained the logical patterns of access and circulation on the site, reinforcing the identity of the Parliamentary Precinct.



Eroding Boundaries

Recent years have seen a return to the confusion and contested boundaries of the early 20th century.

In the 1970s, because of accommodation pressures on the Hill, Parliamentary activities were moved south of Wellington with the conversion of the Metropolitan Life Building (Wellington Building) for House of Commons use. This blurring of boundaries and confusion about the relationship of the Parliamentary Precinct to the city continued with the purchase and lease of additional space for Parliamentary use south of Wellington Street.

At the same time, the approach to departmental accommodation became less controlled. Once again, private sector interests began to put up speculative high rise developments, which were then leased to the government. The only major government initiative during this period was the construction of large office complexes in Hull.

In 1973, the Department of Public Works expropriated all the land south of Parliament Hill, between Wellington and Sparks Streets. The intent was to create a "South Block," which would provide Parliamentarians with permanent accommodation south of Wellington Street. However, outstanding questions of Parliamentary identity, the distinction between Crown and Town and delineation of a clear Parliamentary Precinct were not clearly addressed.

 B. Current and Future Considerations

Today, the dramatic site and strong architecture of the Parliament Buildings set them apart and provide a constant reminder to Members of Parliament and to all Canadians of the responsibility vested in our Parliamentary system.

The institutions of Parliament and their setting form a whole. Together, they represent a melding of contemporary Canadian democracy, with the culture, heritage and history of our people. It is understandable that Canadians and Parliamentarians would want a comprehensive approach to preserving the Parliamentary Precinct.



Continuing Pressures

Many of the issues that have arisen over the years remain unresolved today and are likely to escalate over the coming years. The world has changed dramatically since the Parliament Buildings were built. Planning and renovation of the buildings has not kept pace with these changes. Current and future pressures include:

• Increasing and changing work of Members. There have been significant increases in the number of Members, committees and caucuses without corresponding increases in accommodation. The scope of Members’ responsibilities has also changed, as have public expectations of elected representatives. Renewal and alignment of House of Commons services with the lines of business has taken place without reallocation of space.

• Imbalance between function and setting. The careful hierarchy of spaces in the original designs — intended to serve the public as well as Parliamentarians by inviting access and participation and making the workings of democracy understandable — has been compromised. This presents a threat to the identity of the Parliamentary institutions, raises issues of security and privilege and underscores the need for a clearly defined Precinct. The number of Canadian and international visitors (now over 1 million each year) and the number of diverse activities on the site have increased dramatically in recent years, adding undue pressure to the setting.

• Fragmented information technology infrastructure. While leading information technologies are available to Members in their offices, the infrastructure that will enable continued, evolving and increased use of technology over the next 100 years has not been integrated into the buildings and grounds of the Precinct. The renovation program provides the opportunity of the century to ensure that all facilities are appropriately and consistently equipped.

• Use of substandard and temporary facilities. The piecemeal approach to fixing problems rather than developing a long-term plan for the Precinct has resulted in the continued housing of Members and staff in facilities that do not meet current space standards and, in some cases, in buildings meant as temporary solutions to space problems.

• Deterioration of buildings and grounds. The historic structures are in need of repair and require ongoing maintenance as well as periodic infusions of major capital. The landscape has also suffered in recent years. Both the escarpment and the grounds have lost many of their trees. The pressures of parking and servicing have further eroded the overall sense of an inviting, picturesque landscape.
  
  
  
  

Steps in the Right Direction

Preliminary steps have been taken to address some of the more serious problems. Precinct-wide information technology projects are in progress. Repairs are under way to address the deterioration of the buildings. A landscape plan has been initiated to recover a more appropriate setting. Current renovations of the Justice Building will provide additional space for Members, adding to facilities currently available in the Confederation Building. The possibility of formally extending the Parliamentary Precinct west from Bank Street to Kent Street is being explored.

The important issue of long-term planning is now recognized as a priority, not only for Parliamentarians but also for the institution of Parliament itself, as a defining presence within the urban realities of the Ottawa/Hull region.

 C. Guiding Principles

The following principles are derived from design and planning concepts that shaped the original Parliament Buildings and should guide the development of accommodation in the Parliamentary Precinct over the next 25 years. All renovation and development of the Parliament Precinct should ensure:

1. A clear physical identity — with a defined boundary in which all core Parliamentary activities (Chamber, Committee, Caucus and Constituency) are located.
    
2. Openness and accessibility — through the design and location of facilities that reinforce the idea of public access to Members of Parliament.
    
3. Appropriate design — that demonstrates respect for the original intent, heritage value and role of the buildings as a symbol of Canadian democracy.
    
4. Coherent and logical patterns of use — with facilities organized to reflect and support the work of Parliamentarians in a way that is easily understood by visitors. This calls for a hierarchy of space that reflects the relationships among various Parliamentary functions. Essential support services must be adjacent and easily accessible to the lines of business they support. It also calls for consolidation of some functions now spread within and outside the Precinct.
    
5. Interconnection of functions, services and buildings — providing appropriate infrastructure to allow effective provision of security, information technology and communication services now, and well into the future. Secure, logical and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the Precinct must also be achieved.
    
6. Sustainability — development and maintenance of the buildings and site, aimed at protecting the environment, investments and long-term viability of the site.

Picturesque Canada by G.M. Grant

The Centre, East and West Blocks in 1867. The Precinct is defined on the
south by a stone fence.






















Picturesque Canada by G.M. Grant

The natural escarpment on the north, east and west sides define the complex.

"[…] the architecture of parliamentary buildings and the design and contents of parliamentary chambers make three contributions to political culture: they perpetuate the past, they manifest the present and they condition the future."⁷

The Langevin Block was built in the 1880s to house government departments.

The new Centre Block with its tall Peace Tower creates a more axial orientation on the Hill.

Holt Report, 1915