Open competitions of this nature were intended to encourage innovation and excellence, and were common for government buildings at the time. Although the government did not specifically indicate any preferences for architectural influence or character, its request for a ‘substantial’ style implies, to a certain degree, the need for quality and attention to detail. Other government and legislative buildings constructed in Ontario and Manitoba, as well as several religious and judicial buildings, were similar in their predominant use of locally available natural stone and other basic construction materials.
Design submissions were evaluated in accordance with an adjudication system awarding points in 10 different categories, including:
- fitness of plan/interior arrangements;
- economy of construction, warming, ventilation, and lighting;
- adaptation to local materials, site, and climate;
- beauty of design; and
- safety against fire.
Although some official sources say 32 design concepts were submitted, other references suggest the total numbered more than 200. It is believed at least some of the design formulations were similar in some respects to buildings constructed in Québec City and Toronto around the same time. (Several government employees responsible for the construction of these buildings responded to official enquiries regarding the methodology used to determine their approximate cost estimates. This estimating methodology held some similarities to the Québec and Toronto buildings mentioned.)
In the end, plans from two different architectural firms were chosen and approved by Canada’s Governor General at the time, Sir Edmund Head. The Gothic Revival-style drawings of Thomas Fuller and Chilion Jones were used for the Centre Block and the Library, while those of Thomas Stent and Augustus Laver—similar in style to the first set—were employed for the East and West Blocks.
Researchers have been unable to clearly identify a statement of accommodation set forth for the design of the buildings. A statement or design guideline of this nature, if prepared today, would likely outline the need for edifices supporting the function and administration of our parliamentary political process.
Photo courtesy AFGM architects
The Parliamentary Precinct and the buildings contained within have succeeded in doing the above to an exceptional degree. Although they were “constructed with great haste,” they demonstrate remarkable quality, close attention to detail, and excellent craftsmanship. (To obtain this information, the author went to the Library and Archives of Canada and inspected the actual advertisements that were placed in newspapers at the time. This particular quotation comes from Carolyn A. Young’s The Glory of Ottawa: Canada’s First Parliament Buildings, published by McGill-Queen’s University Press in 1995.)
Shortcomings exhibited by the buildings over time can be traced to limitations regarding provision of occupant requirements and expectations, resulting from the country’s remarkable and sustained growth over time. It is also possible some faults may be somewhat more conspicuous given the continuous innovation that has occurred in construction, construction technology, and building science since the buildings were first designed and constructed.
Looking back, it is apparent the buildings were unable, within the prescribed budget, to provide the space and levels of occupant comfort typically taken for granted today. When the buildings were commissioned, they had no telephones or HVAC comparable to typical modern installations. There was only one operator-assisted elevator and, for the most part, little concern for security arrangements.
The Parliament Buildings’ design and initial construction required an exceptional collaborative effort on the part of Canadian construction professionals. This also held true when disaster struck in 1916 and most assets were consumed by fire in the middle of the First World War—professionals had to regroup, rebuilding these structures from scratch. (The Centre Block and Peace Tower were destroyed in a fire February 3, 1916, but the library, East Block, and West Block were spared. The cause has never been accurately determined.)
The design and construction of the Parliament Buildings is extraordinarily well-documented, and the buildings and site continue to evolve and change as time passes—something for which we should be grateful, although we cannot afford to be complacent. It is crucial to continue efforts to rehabilitate and preserve the buildings.
