- #1 Scape: PM says 24 Sussex Drive in 'terrible condition,' has no plans to live there
Trudeau was asked about the state of the 154-year-old residence, which has sat vacant since he was elected in 2015, during an affordable housing announcement on Friday.
�We know that 24 Sussex has been neglected by many generations of politicians and prime ministers over the years. Unfortunately, it�s in terrible condition. This is a historic building, it�s important, but we also have concerns about its safety,� he said, speaking in French.
�I have no intention of living in 24 Sussex regardless of how long my mandate or mandates may be as prime minister.�
- #2 CDN_PATRIOT: I firmly disagree with tearing it down. Historical buildings need to be preserved. The building might need extensive renovations, but here we also have a PM right now that is a prima donna and thumbs his nose at anything truly Canadian to begin with.
If your the PM, suck it up and live there like many other PMs before you have. Instead of giving all the money to Quebec, set an example and fix the place up. Get quotes like any normal person would, and get the best bang for your buck while getting a decent fix.
Blaming past PMs is a tired old rhetoric that no one wants to hear anymore.
-J.
- #3 housewife: No has had the balls to get the stupid windows replaced or and insulation. What makes you think anyone would have the backbone to say it�s cheaper to demo it and start over?!?
- #4 Thanos: I'm sure, given the history of this country, that whatever option they choose will result in the final cost setting some sort of new record for unaccountable overspending.
- #5 Sunnyways: It�s not as if the PM gets to keep it afterwards. The maintenance of such official buildings should be taken out of the hands of politicians so it can�t become a partisan matter.
- #6 Scape: Tear it down, it's an eyesore and a international embarrassment. This is the standard we have? Better to have a stipend for the PM to live where he chooses and be done with it. It is an albatross that will be used as a political football not a monument to something we should aspire to. Absolute embarrassment that some sort of consensus for the greater good of the country could not be accommodated but that's the level of maturity of our current political culture.
- #7 xerxes: Someone just needs to bite the bullet and pay to get it fixed up. Get Mike Holmes to do it something and make it a TV series that show the renos being done and the history of the residence.
The UK wouldn't let 10 Downing street nor would the US let the White House fall into disrepair. Why should we? Fucking embarrassing that we're so afraid of running up a bill for something historical and relevant that we let it fester.
- #8 Thanos: The thing is that 24 Sussex is nowhere near as iconic as the White House or 10 Downing. All the important moments and significant photo-ops in Canadian government get done in one of the designated chambers in the Parliament building or in the GG's mansion. All the diplomatic meetings with foreign leaders get done in the PM's office on the Hill, not at the residence. Like it or not 24 Sussex is just another old house that needs a lot of work done on it, in a country full of buildings from the same era who also need the same rehab treatment. It's really not a residence that triggers all the gooey patriotic sentiments the other places do, simply because nothing that significant ever really happens there, Aline Chretien almost cracking an intruder in the head with an Inuit carving aside.
I agree on having Mike Holmes fix the place. They need to be sure to have it on video for when Sylvie Trudeau breaks down crying when Mike tells her the asbestos removal alone will cost $30 million dollars. "Our inspector did a half-assed job and lied to us!". 
- #9 Scape: The only thing that is is truly iconic for is that it is the childhood household of our current prime minister which the cons have a hard on for inflicting pain. He grew up there, they want to burn it to the ground before they will let a penny go towards renovations. They want him to walk thru glass and BEG before they lift a finger to remove the wiring and asbestos from two generations ago.
That said the liberals are dragging their feet an not just getting this shit done because they get to play victims. If they cared at all this would have been done but the libs are chickenshits and this has nothing to do with them getting reelected.
- #10 DrCaleb:
"Scape" said
Tear it down, it's an eyesore and a international embarrassment.
Yup. Why do we need to provide housing for an elected politician?
At the very least the building should be razed and replaced with something modern and efficient. Or perhaps we should just dig the PM a cave into the side of a hill! 
- #11 housewife: Face it that house will be argued about for the next however many years with the cost to fix or replace growing every year. The best thing that could happen is someone blows it up! Then there would be no argument on what to do. Of course regardless of what happens it would be a government contract so it will be late and over budget!!
- #12 Strutz:
"housewife" said
Face it that house will be argued about for the next however many years with the cost to fix or replace growing every year. The best thing that could happen is someone blows it up! Then there would be no argument on what to do. Of course regardless of what happens it would be a government contract so it will be late and over budget!!
Probably, because that's the way we roll...
- #13 JaredMilne: I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, Patriot is right about how it is a historic building with political history attached to it. On the other hand, Thanos is right about how it's arguably not nearly as significant to our patriotism as the likes of Downing Street or the White House are to those countries.
And it's not like government heads' residences are fixed. The Mexican Presidents used to live in Chapultepec Castle before they converted it into a national museum in the 1940s, Peru's President is going to do the same thing with his country's national palace, Haiti's Presidential Palace has been destroyed more than once, and during Harry Truman's Presidency the White House was so decrepit it would have made 24 Sussex look like Versailles. Truman had the place gutted and modernized, and was essentially "homeless" for three months of his presidency.
Lots of countries around the world provide official residences for our head of state and government, so why can't we do the same?
My potential solution: Tear the whole thing down, and rebuild it in the same style with appropriate modern plumbing, wiring, etc. and free of asbestos. Keep the furnishings, papers and other contents and put them back once reconstruction is done. That way, the historic tradition is preserved, but it's no longer a decrepit eyesore. The PM still has Harrington Lake as a personal retreat where he can go for private time with his family, and there are any number of places he could probably stay in Ottawa when Parliament is in session or he otherwise has to be 'on location'. If it was good enough for Harry Truman, it's good enough for whoever our PM is if this ever happens.
- #14 DrCaleb:
"JaredMilne" said
Lots of countries around the world provide official residences for our head of state and government, so why can't we do the same?
We do provide a residence for the Head of State. Does, for example, the US provide housing for it's Speaker of the Senate?
I don't think 24 Sussex is historical or unique enough to bother to restore it. Tear it down, build something similar, but better.
- #15 JaredMilne:
"DrCaleb" said
Lots of countries around the world provide official residences for our head of state and government, so why can't we do the same?
We do provide a residence for the Head of State. Does, for example, the US provide housing for it's Speaker of the Senate?
I don't think 24 Sussex is historical or unique enough to bother to restore it. Tear it down, build something similar, but better.
No, but the Speaker of the House is not head of the U.S. government. The U.S. President gets an official residence by virtue of being both head of state and government. A bunch of other countries also provide official residences for their head of government, whether that role is merged with the head of state (as it is in many presidential republics) or it's in a seperate role (if the head of state is a monarch or president, while the head of government is a prime minister). A few countries also provide residences for their vice-presidents.
We also provide an official residence for the Leader of the Opposition, so why shouldn't we have one for our head of government, the Prime Minister?
