Ottawa deserves better architecture. Better buildings for social events, learning and forging community. Places that are accessible, welcoming and resilient in the face of a changing climate and evolving needs. Residents deserve access to clean, safe, public washrooms at transit stations, parks and public markets. The people of Ottawa should have a built environment they can be proud of, one that lifts the human spirit and supports both an equitable economy and sustainable future.
So, why don’t we build these places?
Ottawa lacks the vision for excellence that comes from leadership in architecture provided by a city architect and a robust municipal architectural policy. We’re comfortable letting the federal government and National Capital Commission take responsibility for most of the public realm: Imagine Ottawa without the museums, Parliament Buildings, Experimental Farm, Rideau Canal or Ottawa River parkways. Without federal partners, we likely wouldn’t be building a new central library. No municipal building in Ottawa has ever been recognized with a Governor General’s Medal in Architecture and we collect few prizes at provincial design awards.
This is a choice. We choose not to put washrooms at every LRT station. We choose not to invest in the ByWard Market, the second-most-visited tourist destination in the city. We choose, annually, to allocate a fraction of our budget for buildings and parks. We let billions of dollars worth of buildings crumble due to neglect because we choose not to make sustainable investments.
As the capital of a G7 country, we pale in comparison to livable cities around the world. We need not only leadership championing design excellence, but a guiding policy that would connect documents like our new Official Plan with budgeting, heritage, research and development, and cultural vitality similar to policies that exist in comparable cities around the world, as well as in the province of Quebec. But that is only half the problem.
The way professionals are commissioned in Ottawa is driven by a hiring process that puts design last. The focus is on risk avoidance and low fees. This does a disservice to the people of Ottawa, harms our economy and stifles innovation.
If the city wants to hire an architect for a project, it won’t consider a firm that hasn’t done the same project before, multiple times and recently. Architecture critic Alex Bozikovic discussed this last year, questioning why Toronto won’t make great buildings. If you’ve designed apartment buildings but not affordable housing, you are out of the running. If you worked on them elsewhere then start your own practice, it’s the same story. A new firm can’t get a contract to design a washroom because they don’t have City of Ottawa washrooms in their portfolio. That means the people of Ottawa don’t get the benefit of creative ideas.
Imagine if the only new music published was from artists who had published at least three albums in the last five years? What if we restricted new restaurants to only those who had previously owned a restaurant? Or told artists that they could only exhibit if they’d previously had work shown at the Ottawa Art Gallery or National Gallery? We’d never see new music, food or art.
The city also assumes that if three architects meet the minimum qualifications, the lowest price is best. That might be true if you are buying toilet paper or plywood; these are physical things that can be quantified. But what about service? The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has a published guide that explains this: Suppose a $2 million building costs $200,000 to design but costs $9 million in lifetime operating costs for utilities and services. If a creative architect invests more time in the design, spending 10 per cent more in fees, but saves five per cent annually on utility costs, the city might spend an “extra” $20,000 initially, but save $450,000 over time. A better hiring process makes this possible.
Our current process of commissioning architects imposes one-sided contracts that undermine equity with pages of legalese (ending up longer than the original contract) at odds with fundamental aspects of established laws. Businesses are dissuaded from bidding due to conditions that aren’t balanced, that are unfair or that impose an unfair transfer of risk.
The city’s process also sets up unfair payment conditions. On signing a contract, bidders are expected to discount their fees and, if the city pays on time, are expected to offer a further discount. Why should an architect’s or engineer’s fee be reduced if the city pays on time, as is their legal obligation under the Construction Act? Unfairness is baked into our procurement bylaw. The bylaw, and contract conditions, are written by people who don’t understand architecture or engineering, don’t understand the regulatory world we’re obligated to work in, and don’t seem to care if the result is unfair or unethical.
Beverley McLachlin, former chief justice of Canada, wrote, “Architects and engineers generally operate as independent practitioners providing services and are not subject to detailed control by those whom they serve. The subject matter of their services is generally of a complex technical nature about which the client is relatively ignorant.” This is evident in published Requests for Proposal and the city’s own project management systems.
If we want to be the city we aspire to be, the public needs to demand better. This requires political will to invest in our places, our people and our future. That takes design leadership to guide policy-based decisions on how our city achieves its goals.
It also takes reform to the public-sector approach to hiring and commissioning of architects and engineers. Creating durable, beautiful and uplifting buildings, parks and social infrastructure requires the creative talents, skills and abilities of interested firms who make Ottawa their home.
#OurBestOttawa is possible.
