Sat 20 Jan 2007
Politics and Architecture
Posted by kaqchikel under alberta , arts, leisure, sports , culture , general , leadership & leaders , regal & vice-regal affairsBrian Mason of the NDP is in a huff over the projected five million expense for the next residence of the Lieutenant Governor. Five million is not nothing, to be sure, but surely Albertans wouldn’t want the provincial representative of the Crown to live in a shack.
When an NDP leader clothes himself in the garb of defender of the taxpayer, there is always something suspicious. His party doesn’t quite have the record of protecting taxpayers but the opposite.
The surprise should be that the residence is only expected to last one hundred years. A residence for the Lieutenant Governor, in addition to functionality, should be built as an expression of the institution of the Crown and its place in our constitution. It should also be built to express what is good about Alberta and Albertans; it should say something about us to future generations.
Should the Alberta Legislature have been built only to last a century? In the idea that it should last a mere 10 decades, there is a lack of foresight and a lack of historical awareness; there is a lack of understanding of the role that such symbols play in the political life of a community.
Based on the silly argument of insulting taxpayers, as Mason argues, nothing great or worth keeping for generations would have ever been built in any civilisation. Erecting public buildings purposely for a few decades only is equally foolish. By that logic, if we are to be consistent, museums, theatres, city halls and court houses would be placed in mobile trailers.
I agree completely. Respect for the Crown is also respect for Canada and her institutions.
The NDP claiming taxes are wasted is a hoot. The NDP has never seen a wasteful ptogram they haven’t supported.
Buildings (in Alberta, at least) are usually only designed to last for 40 years. There are many stuctures still around that are older than that, and i would imagine that this one will likely be overdesigned and last for much longer as well. I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
Overdesigned? You missed my point, it seems.
I doubt the British monarchy will endure another century, so perhaps a dual-purpose design might serve the taxpayer better.
To Sean
Is your doubt about the monarchy lasting in Britain or lasting in Canada?
If in Britain, I would be very doubtful about your doubts. The Brits seem to have a whole lot more respect for tradition than we do in Canada. Unless the Royals commit political hari-kari (always a possibility given human nature), an institution that has been around for over a thousand years may very well be around a century from now.
If in Canada, I am not as doubtful about your doubts. However, one should keep in mind that to change the status of the monarchy in Canada (in otherwords become a republic) would require the UNANIMOUS approval of the feds plus ALL the provinces. While enthusiasm for the monarchy in Canada is quite underwhelming, there is at present no groundswell of support to abolish it, particularly in the Maritimes.
I hope we’ve progressed past veneration of someone predicated on accident of birth. A hundred years from now is plenty of time to wise up.
I was not talking about the British monarchy. The Lieutenant Governor represents the Canadian Monarch established by Canadian law. It has been so since last century though some in this country are still not wise to it.
Second, Sean’s first comment about the institution (monarchy) was better expressed than the second comment (by which he just destroyed the argument about progress: the assumption that what happens later is always better than what came before) which is wrong. No one has said boo about revering a person. The Crown is not a person but an institution.
Should we design new public buildings on the basis of Sean’s doubts, then, and not at all on the basis of our Constitution, our traditions and our laws?
Sean: “I hope we’ve progressed past veneration of someone predicated on accident of birth.”
Based on the delight of the MSM et al regarding Justin Trudeau, you’re likely to be disappointed.
kaq, give your head a shake. All kings, monarchs, emirs, emperors, and their courtiers, cousins, and hangers-on owe their pampered existence to a bizarre notion of “nobility” by dint of blind chance. The Crown sits on someone’s head, not on the institution. This Canadian Monarch you speak of; who is it, and who crowned him/her?
Re. Justin Trudeau, Candace..couldn’t agree more. He’ll have to get by the voters.
I have a better idea. Make the GG split her time between Ottawa and another region. Let’s spend $2.5m on the Ottawa residence, and the other $2.5m can be spent on her residence in Grande Prairie or Prince George. Maybe PG since it has the regal name and all that.
Tom
This is not about the GG but the LG. I welcome the idea of an official residence in the west for the GG, however.
I said earlier that the British Monarchy may not have another 100 years in them; at least, not relevant years. Since then, I read an article in the Economist that puts Scotland’s desire to leave Great Britain at over 50%.
It won’t be the same monarchy without the Union Jack.
Perhaps I did miss your point. As you did mine. Overdesigned means that if you build something to last for 40 years, any time that it remains in use after that time is in excess of the design plan, hence, “overdesigned”. Most, if not all, buildings are overdesigned to some degree, and I see no reason that this one will not be as well. So while they say 100 years, its probably more likely that the lifespan will be closer to 150.
How long do you think it should remain standing for? Comparing the fortresses built on rock in Britain to a residence on the Alberta dirt is ridiculous, and although I don’t believe you made this comparison, it seems as though that’s what you expect. You need to find out whats feasible for this part of the world for the money available before you start critisizing.