Originally published in Centretown Buzz and Spacing Ottawa
by Sarah Gelbard


“Down by the bay (street)” and “Cheese of the World.” Photos by Christopher Ryan.

What is architecture and who is an architect? We all sort of know but sort of don’t. I have been studying, designing, and writing about architecture for fifteen years and I don’t really know. I can say the answer is not as simple as “an architect makes architecture, and architecture is something made by architects.”

Last month I attended Critic’s Night at the Phi Centre in Montreal co-hosted by the Maison de l’architecture du Québec (MAQ) and the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC). The evening included a wonderful bilingual discussion between two greatly respected architecture critics; former New York Times architecture critic Paul Goldberger and Emmanuel Caille, senior editor of D’architectures.

M. Caille is an architect. Mr. Goldberger is not. Both are obviously exceptionally knowledgeable about architecture. Both are highly influential voices in architecture. They raised some very important issues and questions about the role of criticism and what it contributes to architecture.

A damaging review by a theatre critic or food critic might shut-down the show or restaurant. It is hard to imagine that a bad review by an architecture critic has ever shut-down a building or stopped people who planned to use it from using it. So what is the point of architecture critics if the object of their criticism is already built and not going anywhere?

There are many reasons why architectural criticism and journalism are important:

  • It advocates for and sets a bar for good and better architecture.
  • It gives the general public increased access to understanding what can seem to be an overwhelmingly insiders’ discipline.
  • It gives architects recognition for their hard work.
  • It also keeps architects accountable to the general public.

Architecture has the potential for huge public impact. Codes and regulations keep architecture physically safe and keeps architects accountable to public safety. Critics and academics help to give us the tools to understand and evaluate—among other things—the social and cultural impact of architecture. Afterall, it is not enough for architects to produce something to make their clients happy and just conforms to codes.

Hopefully, architecture criticism and journalism make us all better critics and appreciators of architecture. It gives more people access to understanding what architects do, what architecture can be, and what standards we should expect. It raises the discussion beyond personal taste. It can help us place architecture in the context of the important issues that shape our cities; economic, social, environmental, political, historical, and aesthetic issues.

The world celebrated Jane Jacobs’ 100th birthday this month. As one of the greatest critics of the 20th century, Jacobs had a greater impact on the shape of our cities than any architect. She reminded us that cities are not just skyscrapers and freeways. Not just built by planners and architects.

Google doodle for Jane Jacobs 100th birthday.

Google doodle for Jane Jacobs 100th birthday.

I love reading and talking with fellow architecture critics, writers, and journalists. Again, some have architectural training, some do not. We come to architecture from different paths but share a passion for our shared subject. Here in Ottawa, Jonathan McLeod, often discuss architecture and urban design, both in his Ottawa Citizen articles and on his blog “Steps from the Canal.”

Read More

I know many of my B.Arch./M.Arch. cohort and other architecture friends and colleagues have not pursued licensing but still actively participate in architecture and the built environment in one form or another.

I am therefore deeply concerned by the recent announcement from the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada that they will be retiring the old MRAIC designation in favour of RAIC to be used only by licensed architects. Until now, the MRAIC designation could be used by non-licensed members including graduates and faculty of schools of architecture.

The headline “New designation set to raise profile of architects” makes me question whether that is to the benefit of architecture in Canada or to licensed architects.

In Canada, licensing and associated designations are legislated under the Architect Act and regulated by the provincial professional architect associations. I understand (though don’t fully agree) with the need to protect the title “architect” to protect the public and make sure it is clear who is licensed to design buildings over a certain scale or of certain types.

I do not call myself an architect. I do not use the professional designation OAA. In fact, I recently gave a career talk at Algonquin College and specifically titled my presentation “I am NOT an architect”. I have a long list of titles to work around using the registered legislated title:

  • Architectural advocate/theorist/designer/activist/writer/educator
  • Critical architectural/urban art practitioner
  • Trained as an architect
  • Studied architecture

I never present myself as someone who knows how to make door schedules or check a design against building codes and zoning regulations. I absolutely do not intend to imply that is all an architect does. I actually mean to imply that there is a huge overlap between what a licensed architect does and what I do, between what they know and what I know. I still wouldn’t stamp my name to a construction drawing or give advice on technical details I’m not trained or experienced in. They (most of them) won’t go around publishing in academic journals.

Do people misunderstand the distinction between “studied architecture” and “architect”? ALL THE TIME. I don’t call myself an architect but lots of people call me one. The use of M.Arch. after my name creates this confusion as much as MRAIC. I used to always correct them. Now I consider whether or not someone introducing me at a party as an “architect” is putting the public at risk or if it’s just easier than using one of the more accurate but cumbersome titles from my list.

There is an important distinction between misrepresentation and misunderstanding. While it is reasonable to regulate and impose restrictions to control against professional misrepresentation, the change by the RAIC claims to be about clarifying general public misunderstanding about who is and who isn’t an architect by restricting use of their non-legislated designation.

To what extent should I veil my architectural association/knowledge/expertise/disposition to ensure I am not accidentally misconceived to be an architect? And to what extent should I not be able to present my valid qualifications and associations because some unethical person might misuse them to misrepresent themselves?

Read More

Originally published in Centretown Buzz and Spacing Ottawa
by Jeff Salmon


Now that we are a couple months removed from the public presentations and consultation process for the redevelopment of Lebreton Flats I am anxious to see what recommendations will be made to the National Capital Commission (NCC) Board of Directors by the evaluation committee.

Their recommendation along with a summary of the public input that was compiled for the committee will be made public sometime this spring.

As we await their recommendation, I can’t help but wonder what influence our input will have on the committee’s decision, if any at all. I am optimistic that the more than 7,900 people who submitted comments will feel as if they were a valued part of the process through some correlation between the summary and the selected design. However, the public engagement process has left me with some reservations.

The magnitude of the Lebreton redevelopment demanded more than a few public presentations and two weeks to provide comments through an online questionnaire. While we likely won’t see another project of its size or prominence in the near future it does call into question whether the current public engagement strategies are adequate. I would argue that they aren’t.

To date Ottawa has championed the online questionnaire for gathering feedback from citizens. As mentioned, for the Lebreton redevelopment this tool was employed in conjunction with the question period of the public presentations.

Similarly, although it may be a distant memory to some now, the City undertook the Liveable Ottawa 2031 project two years ago which also consisted of an online questionnaire.  The perspective gained from this exercise was supposed to play a role in influencing public policy in Ottawa which would be reflected in the amendments to the Official Plan, Transportation Master Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan, Cycling Plan, and Pedestrian Plan.

Yet some of the Liveable Ottawa questions were too ambiguous and were left open to interpretation as previously noted by yowLAB and the Ottawa Citizen. Additionally, it is still unclear to me how the information gathered was put to use.

I think we all appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback but without an understanding of how it will be put to use, the incentive to continue participating diminishes.

Read More

While the National Capital Commission was pleased to announce the success of their public consultation with nearly 8,000 responses to the questionnaire on the redevelopment of LeBreton Flats, we are left asking to what end? How will the content of those questionnaires be compiled? Who will see the results? How will public feedback be used, if at all, and at what stage of the decision making process?

Following the close of the online feedback, the NCC chief executive Mark Kristmanson exclaimed:

The high level of civic engagement and serious debate on the redevelopment of LeBreton Flats will help guide this historic project to a successful conclusion.

Yet many, myself included, were disappointed because the public consultation lacked precisely that; opportunity for meaningful engagement and serious debate.

Despite a few leaks, no details were shared about either proposal until the public presentations on January 26 and 27 at the Canadian War Museum. Neither the formal presentations, that were more marketing than informative, or the Q&A session were sufficient for facilitating serious debate.

With only two weeks to participate in the only official form of public feedback, the extremely limited format of the online questionnaire contributed little more than a flood of knee-jerk reactions and poll of individual opinions. Engagement and debate require an opportunity to interact.

The number of questionnaire responses shows sincere public interest. The NCC should be excited. Sadly we have not been given a platform to actively engage in prioritizing goals or guiding principles to construct the groundwork for a responsible and meaningful development.

On the “ladder of citizen participation”—a tool devised in the 1960s by Sherry Arnstein for classifying participation—the LeBreton Flats process sadly falls at best in the “tokenism” category of placation, consultation, and informing. There is no partnership or citizen power.

Especially in the light of the history of the Flats as emblematic of the kind of authoritative control of the highly criticized and problematic mid-century approach to urban planning, we have to wonder whether our present day process is realistically any more sensitive or sensible.

Read More

Originally published in Centretown Buzz and Spacing Ottawa
by Sarah Gelbard
15 January 2016

As buzz grows about our sesquicentennial in 2017, the National Capital Commission wants us to place our sites on the bicentennial. In December the NCC released a call to the public to submit seventeen ideas for the “major milestone projects” for 2067.

Ottawa Brutalism

It is a difficult task in the shadow of the monumental legend of 1967. The family trip to Expo 67 is one of my mother’s favourite childhood stories. Even as new immigrants to Canada, the Centennial infiltrated family lore on my father’s side as well. It seems the whole generation remembers and is attached to Expo and the Centennial projects that stretched across the country.

I planned to offer a full list of seventeen but just seven turned into an ordeal. I have tried to offer a mix of guiding principles and specific ideas. Many build on and continue to develop the strong vision the NCC has struggled to implement since the last centennial. They are a combination of architecture, infrastructure, landscapes, cultural, practical and ideological projects.

I cannot say that in fifty-one years I will believe in the following ideas. I hope they contribute to the discussion about what direction to move forward on over the next fifty-one years.

Read More

Originally submitted to Centretown Buzz and Spacing Ottawa
by Jeff Salmon
11 December 2015

Historically markets have played an important role in cities and were often the heartbeat of the community. For many people they were, and continue to be, part of everyday life. In the past markets formed the link between urban and rural life as farmers and craftsman would bring their produce, livestock or other goods to the market to sell. The items for sale were representative of the resources, needs, and wants of the community it served. In this sense markets can provide a wonderfully broad understanding on the city and culture they are located in.


Winter in the Byward Market. Credit: Pierre Lachaîne

Ottawa, of course, is noted for the ByWard Market which remains a lively marketplace that used to cater to the blue-collar neighborhood Lowertown. Of the 5 original markets in Ottawa, only two remain – the ByWard Market and the Parkdale Market which is located in Hintonburg. Both of these continue to be hubs of activity within their communities.

In addition to these two permanent fixtures Ottawa has a number of other weekend pop-up markets where you can find local produce, baked goods, and a range of other offerings that can change by the week.

This summer I was impressed by the crowds at the Lansdowne farmers market each time I went, and seeing so many parents there with children brought back fond memories of when my dad would take me with him to the farmers market when I was growing up. Looking back now, the market was a fantastic place to learn about the local community, craft, and commerce.

Back then, bumping into friends gave the adults an opportunity to catch up and allowed us kids to explore in the safety of a pack – fortunately for our parents it was not a very large market. It was commonplace to run into people we knew and it became part of the fun of going. During the summers when we would go regularly we also came to know the vendors quite well.

Having the opportunity to talk to, and get to know some of them was an excellent lesson in mastering a craft. Not only could the farmers detail all the different ways their produce grows, but local artisans selling wooden toys or Christmas ornaments would tell you everything you wanted to know about their creations. As a curious kid I loved hearing about how things were grow or made.

Read More

Ottawa Public Library, Main Branch. 1973. George Bemi, architect.

I finally managed get into the library with my proper camera (sneaky cellphone shots don’t do it justice) and capture some of the beauty I see in the building. The main branch has been subject to some rather unsympathetic renovations over the years and it is sad that most people don’t experience it the way it was designed to be experienced. But if I can get in there and find it through a camera lens, I think it is possible to rediscover it through a thoughtful renovation.