General Update/Rumour thread [Urban Ottawa] - Page 297

kwoldtimer · #**5921** Posted **Dec 27, 2019, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have never understood this fixation with having a building called "National Portrait Gallery," to house LAC's photo collection; to me it is just a symptom of Ottawa's massive inferiority complex.

Anyway, they are in the process of building a library to host LAC's various collections, so I think this latest quest is likely to go nowhere.

Not sure how you get to an inferiority complex from an aspiration for a fitting home for the nation’s family album. I’ve never seen anything to suggest that the LAC expansion has implications wrt the Portrait collection.

J.OT13 · #**5922** Posted **Dec 27, 2019, 1:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have never understood this fixation with having a building called "National Portrait Gallery," to house LAC's photo collection; to me it is just a symptom of Ottawa's massive inferiority complex.

Anyway, they are in the process of building a library to host LAC's various collections, so I think this latest quest is likely to go nowhere.

Many of our counterparts have such an institution with that exact name. The first two on the list below use a similar architecture as the old U.S. Embassy on Wellington.

U.K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery,_London

U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_(United_States)

Scotland ("National" in the Québec sense)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Portrait_Gallery

Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_(Australia)

Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_(Sweden)

kwoldtimer · #**5923** Posted **Dec 27, 2019, 1:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Many of our counterparts have such an institution with that exact name. The first two on the list below use a similar architecture as the old U.S. Embassy on Wellington.

U.K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery,_London

U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_(United_States)

Scotland ("National" in the Québec sense)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Portrait_Gallery

Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_(Australia)

Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_(Sweden)

That to me offers a “proof of concept”, but is incidental to the rationale for a Canadian institution.

Admiral Nelson · #**5924** Posted **Dec 27, 2019, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have never understood this fixation with having a building called "National Portrait Gallery," to house LAC's photo collection; to me it is just a symptom of Ottawa's massive inferiority complex.

Yikes—I don't appreciate the inferiority complex accusation trotted out here with regards this proposal. Opposing a national institution because it doesn't personally resonate seems to me the far more traditional 'Ottawa' attitude that is summed up by "why ever should we strive for interesting and excellent when we can settle for forgettable and mediocre?"

Answer me this: If you were around in the P.E.T. days, were you also opposed to the Museum of Civilization and National Gallery? Do you still think of them as unworthy displays of capital-building excess? Rusty 'ol Bytown shouldn't have merited inclusion in the club of world capitals with such institutions, right? No. I should hope not. This is no different - we have a nationally significant portrait collection sitting in storage and no permanent exhibition space. Whether portraits interest you personally or not, let's get on with it. Because other Canadians do and deserve a chance to see it when visiting their capital.

Mille Sabords · #**5925** Posted **Dec 27, 2019, 10:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

Yikes—I don't appreciate the inferiority complex accusation trotted out here with regards this proposal. Opposing a national institution because it doesn't personally resonate seems to me the far more traditional 'Ottawa' attitude that is summed up by "why ever should we strive for interesting and excellent when we can settle for forgettable and mediocre?"

Answer me this: If you were around in the P.E.T. days, were you also opposed to the Museum of Civilization and National Gallery? Do you still think of them as unworthy displays of capital-building excess? Rusty 'ol Bytown shouldn't have merited inclusion in the club of world capitals with such institutions, right? No. I should hope not. This is no different - we have a nationally significant portrait collection sitting in storage and no permanent exhibition space. Whether portraits interest you personally or not, let's get on with it. Because other Canadians do and deserve a chance to see it when visiting their capital.

Yeah, well said.

acottawa · #**5926** Posted **Dec 30, 2019, 6:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Many of our counterparts have such an institution with that exact name. The first two on the list below use a similar architecture as the old U.S. Embassy on Wellington.

U.K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery,_London

U.S.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_(United_States)

Scotland ("National" in the Québec sense)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Portrait_Gallery

Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_(Australia)

Sweden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_(Sweden)

All of those were established by wealthy patrons who brought significant collections to the table.

To my knowledge, there was no such offer from a wealthy patron for a gallery in Ottawa. When a plan briefly existed, it was supposed to use the collection of LAC as a source (mostly black and white photographs). I have never seen a compelling reason why separating out the portraits from the LAC collection made any sense from either a visitor experience, logistical or educational perspective.

I think what some people want is a Hall of Fame. I don't think that is necessarily a bad idea (although in the current political climate it would be an ultra-politicized selection process), but again I am not sure why building such an institution on black and white photographs would make sense.

acottawa · #**5927** Posted **Dec 30, 2019, 6:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

Yikes—I don't appreciate the inferiority complex accusation trotted out here with regards this proposal. Opposing a national institution because it doesn't personally resonate seems to me the far more traditional 'Ottawa' attitude that is summed up by "why ever should we strive for interesting and excellent when we can settle for forgettable and mediocre?"

Answer me this: If you were around in the P.E.T. days, were you also opposed to the Museum of Civilization and National Gallery? Do you still think of them as unworthy displays of capital-building excess? Rusty 'ol Bytown shouldn't have merited inclusion in the club of world capitals with such institutions, right? No. I should hope not. This is no different - we have a nationally significant portrait collection sitting in storage and no permanent exhibition space. Whether portraits interest you personally or not, let's get on with it. Because other Canadians do and deserve a chance to see it when visiting their capital.

I was an infant in the PET days, so I did not have a strong view either way.

The Museum of Civilization and National Gallery were longstanding institutions with established collections that needed a proper building to display those collections. In hindsight, I think both were good ideas.

If there were a longstanding institution that needed a new building I would probably be supportive.

But there is no National Portrait Collection, the only reason why people want a National Portrait Gallery, with no consideration of whether the institution would be useful or worth visiting, is because other cities have institutions of that name. To me that is the quintessential Ottawa Inferiority Complex, let's take some random subset of another collection, and check a "we have one of those" box, who cares if it is worth having.

kwoldtimer · #**5928** Posted **Dec 30, 2019, 1:24 PM**

In addition to a National Portrait Gallery, Canada needs a national war art gallery.

JHikka · #**5929** Posted **Dec 31, 2019, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

In addition to a National Portrait Gallery, Canada needs a national war art gallery.

Does the War Museum not currently satisfy this?

Harley613 · #**5930** Posted **Dec 31, 2019, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

Does the War Museum not currently satisfy this?

The War Museum has some pretty awesome temporary art exhibits rotating through the gallery at the entrance, It would be cool if they could all be static, but then who owns the art?

kwoldtimer · #**5931** Posted **Dec 31, 2019, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHikka

Does the War Museum not currently satisfy this?

No, imo.

Kitchissippi · #**5932** Posted **Dec 31, 2019, 6:03 PM**

The War museum hangs most of its large paintings along the exit ramp, which is a terrible space because the walls are angled and the floor is sloped. It is almost impossible to view the canvasses properly, they are mounted too high and the light glares from the raking angle of the fixtures

acottawa · #**5933** Posted **Jan 2, 2020, 6:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harley613

The War Museum has some pretty awesome temporary art exhibits rotating through the gallery at the entrance, It would be cool if they could all be static, but then who owns the art?

War museum owns most of it. Not sure why they don't display more of it in the permanent collection; the building itself doesn't seem to lack space.

Glenlivet Ave · #**5934** Posted **Jan 7, 2020, 2:33 AM**

Interesting article on the CBC about expected growth in Ottawa over the next 10 years: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-next-decade-1.5412648

This is their list of major projects, I'd be interested to hear which ones you guys are looking forward to seeing completed? Which big ones did they miss?

1 - Revamped Elgin Street
2 - O-Train to expand, including to the airport
3 - More people living near LRT stations
4 - The new Ottawa Central Library
5 - Renovations at Parliament Hill

kevinbottawa · #**5935** Posted **Jan 7, 2020, 2:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenlivet Ave

Interesting article on the CBC about expected growth in Ottawa over the next 10 years: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-next-decade-1.5412648

This is their list of major projects, I'd be interested to hear which ones you guys are looking forward to seeing completed? Which big ones did they miss?

1 - Revamped Elgin Street
2 - O-Train to expand, including to the airport
3 - More people living near LRT stations
4 - The new Ottawa Central Library
5 - Renovations at Parliament Hill

Zibi should've had its own section. It's one of the more significant projects in the city.

J.OT13 · #**5936** Posted **Jan 7, 2020, 2:44 AM**

Which one in my looking forward to the most? O-Train expansion by a long shot. We won't truly feel the benefits until Stage 2 is complete. What did they miss? Zibi, Sparks, LeBreton, potential new NHL arena (at LeBreton), ByWard Market revitalization...

SidetrackedSue · #**5937** Posted **Jan 14, 2020, 1:42 AM**

I tried the search function but it never returns anything useful for me so I'll put this here:

Rumour: The city is trying to buy Graham Spry building on Lanark (behind Westboro Station) to create a mega complex with three giant low-income rental towers.

This is pure rumour that came to me from one of the tenants in my building. No source.

I can't quickly pull up the list of properties that council had put together as an inventory of potential low-income housing sites so don't know if that list is the genesis of this rumour.

Just last year, the rumour was there would be a leash free dog park on the property next to that site.

Anyone heard anything about this?

CityTech · #**5938** Posted **Jan 14, 2020, 1:56 AM**

The city is unlikely to be paying for something that extravagant. It would be the perfect spot though: there's already so many market-rate towers going up in that area, so it would create a mix of incomes at the station (which is the best thing to do with social housing).

SidetrackedSue · #**5939** Posted **Jan 14, 2020, 12:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CityTech

The city is unlikely to be paying for something that extravagant. It would be the perfect spot though: there's already so many market-rate towers going up in that area, so it would create a mix of incomes at the station (which is the best thing to do with social housing).

There's also subsidized and lower-income housing nearby so this would help keep the balance in the neighbourhood the same. And there are many programs supporting low-income people at the field house on Van Lang. So not only is there good transit nearby, there are other social supports for the resident existing in the neighbourhood.

waterloowarrior · #**5940** Posted **Jan 14, 2020, 1:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SidetrackedSue

I tried the search function but it never returns anything useful for me so I'll put this here:

Rumour: The city is trying to buy Graham Spry building on Lanark (behind Westboro Station) to create a mega complex with three giant low-income rental towers.

This is pure rumour that came to me from one of the tenants in my building. No source.

I can't quickly pull up the list of properties that council had put together as an inventory of potential low-income housing sites so don't know if that list is the genesis of this rumour.

Just last year, the rumour was there would be a leash free dog park on the property next to that site.

Anyone heard anything about this?

here is the list you mentioned for with potential sites. 250 Lanark is identified as one option.
http://ottwatch.ca/meetings/file/579067