Opinion: Canada needs an architecture policy

Toon Dreessen is president of Architects DCA and a past president of the Ontario Association of Architects.

In 1960, in the lead-up to Canada’s Centennial, prime minister John Diefenbaker challenged Canadian architects to design “something to touch the hearts of Canadians, something to represent the unity of our country.” And they did: 2,300 projects were funded, including 860 buildings, many becoming cherished icons of their communities. Buildings like the Museum of Vancouver, the Winnipeg Concert Hall and the National Arts Centre in Ottawa are all Centennial projects.

During the postwar years, and through the 1970s and 80s, Canada built thousands of units of public housing; we spent billions of dollars on libraries, arenas, community centres and sports facilities, and built parks across the country. This social infrastructure was, and remains, vital to our well-being and integral to our cultural identity.

Today, cities are sitting on an enormous infrastructure deficit, with billions of dollars in underfunded aging assets; buildings that need renewal and, in some cases, replacement. We have parks that need washrooms and renewed landscapes to create places for people to enjoy nature and forge community. More Canadians live in cities than ever before, a trend that will continue as we grow, increasing demand for vibrant, sustainable, public spaces.

Past attempts to address this infrastructure deficit have met with mixed results. Election platforms often focus on infrastructure renewal with emphasis on “pipes and paving” as a quick way to get the economy moving, but rarely do they address important social infrastructure like housing, community centres, parks and other public places.

Surveys shows that Canadians are unsatisfied with the quality of their surroundings. This has been overlaid by a fear of the twin existential threats of U.S. imperialism and the catastrophic effects of climate change. We’ve witnessed communities devastated by extreme weather events and know that we’re facing more in the future, as the effects of climate change wear down whatever resilience that remains.

This is exactly where an architecture policy can play a key role. And by “architecture” we shouldn’t just think of buildings. We should think of buildings and landscapes as well as transportation infrastructure, plazas and parkways as elements of the built environment that make our society thrive. These are all things over which we can create a policy to guide better decision-making.

An architecture policy sets ambitious goals for how the built environment can contribute to our cultural, social and economic well-being. It establishes accountability for public institutions, professionals and the public on how to create inclusive, sustainable communities that inspire.

Open this photo in gallery:

Quebec began this process more than a decade ago. Recognizing the importance of its unique culture, history and sense of identity, Quebec established a policy that, today, is manifesting in a vibrant design culture, creating great public places like libraries and parks across the province, Place des Arts in Montreal and the Promenade Samuel de Champlain in Quebec City. Small businesses are thriving, and Quebec design culture is flourishing just as it has for art, film and music, all of which are supported by existing strong cultural policies.

The rest of Canada should follow this lead.

We already have policies on music, theatre and art, but architecture is the missing piece. This was called for in the groundbreaking 1951 Massey report that led to today’s cultural policies.

Any architecture policy should recognize the importance of our vast and varied landscape, the cultural heritage of built works, natural landscapes, First Peoples and modern communities, forging a stronger relationship between people, the land and resources. It should help create a more resilient future while empowering economic development, and lead to more sustainable urbanism.

Architecture can be an agent of social justice, providing accessible places for people to live with dignity. Through a policy, we can create a framework to guide decisions to live healthier lives, reflecting on our past and understanding our role in society, as custodians of the future world we leave to our children.

And fundamentally, such a policy would reinforce that architecture is a creative industry. That can inform how we value what we build and how we support Canadian businesses and technology on an international stage. It would help grow demands for our talent on the world stage, bringing made-in-Canada technology and systems to a broader market. Other countries have strong policies that support their design and artistic sectors in international markets. Why not Canada?

A chief architect for Canada, guided by an architecture policy, would provide a vital link between federal ministries, informing decision-making, bringing together ideas and connecting initiatives. Such an office could also serve as a link to provincial governments, which may have their own architecture secretariats, and municipal chief architects in major cities. This would link not only governments but connect private industries, regulators and advocates, working toward a common aspirational goal.

Now that the election campaign is over, Prime Minister Mark Carney will be eager to show that not only can we stave off U.S. trade aggression, but that we can thrive as a result. It is time to connect the dots between our infrastructure deficit, our economy and our culture and create the policy leadership to make the best use of investment in Canadian places. It is time for an architecture policy for Canada.