As I understand it, the nuance is that the gross toll revenue won't be split, but the net proceeds — after expenses like debt service, I hope — will be, for 15 years. This is different from the original deal, which had Canada keeping 100% of everything until it had paid off its $6.4 billion debt balance. Importantly, Canada also had complete authority over toll governance.

This is objectively a worse deal for Canada and we were bullied into it at the last minute with a classic geopolitical re-trade. But how much worse is it?

The public messaging is that net profits will likely be close to zero, and maybe even negative, in the early years of operations. So it's not inconceivable that no payments will be made to the US's local economic development fund until later years. If this is the case, the impact on Canada's net present value might be negligible. I haven't seen any of the math, but it's possible this was a small price to pay to get the bridge open.

From what I can glean, the most damaging aspects of this re-trade are the following: first, Canada lost sole authority to set its own tolls and govern the bridge — a bridge that we paid for in full! And second, it demonstrates that, at the present time, the US cannot be trusted to honour its agreements.

Re-trading, of course, happens all the time in politics and business, and the real estate industry is no different. But I would say that there's a difference between a bad-faith re-trade and a legitimate risk adjustment. Sometimes new information is discovered or the market changes in the middle of a deal, and one party needs a deal adjustment to be able to proceed.

At the same time, there are also bad-faith re-trades where one party simply wants to apply any leverage it may have, be a bully, and capitalize on deal fatigue. "Ugh, let's just get this open!" This is a short-sighted practice because it immediately destroys trust and damages your reputation. It may leave you better off on this one deal, but it makes the next ones that much harder.

Cover photo by Brad Switzer

One, land on the periphery tends to get hit first and recover last. It's a kind of "last in, first out" principle. During a market expansion, core areas become expensive first, and then demand "spills over" to the periphery in search of opportunity.

These areas are, therefore, last (or later) to appreciate and first to fall when the market turns. This also means that they're last to rebound when the market recovers because, generally speaking, demand will start in the core and then move outward.

And two, execution becomes critical. If you don't get your product offering right and execute well, you can't rely on the tide of the market to carry you. We're seeing exactly this today.

It is, as we talk about on this blog, extremely difficult to make new projects work in the current market environment, and so few developers are launching and breaking ground, and many projects are getting cancelled.

But it's worth pointing out that there are still some projects moving forward, and that's because they got their product offering right and they executed well. And maybe they leveraged public grants or incentives to help tip the scales of feasibility.

Cover photo by Ali Köse

When a deal does come back around, it's interesting to revisit our original pro forma assumptions to see how we did and how our thinking may have evolved. In today's market, it's not uncommon for our base rental rates to be even lower than what we were assuming a few years ago. Are we now at the bottom? Only time will tell.

The paradox of today's market is that land prices are the lowest they have been since I started in development, but it's exceptionally difficult to make new projects work. Of course, as soon as it becomes easier to make projects work, land prices will once again reflect that. So if you are looking for opportunities, today's market is about finding ways to capitalize on cheaper land while protecting for the risks inherent in the current market.

In other words, you need to be a contrarian. And as we know, if you're a contrarian and you're right, there's a huge upside. But if you're a contrarian and you get it wrong, well, then at least you went for it! The ideal scenario is that you simply get the timing right, but that involves luck. The things you can directly control are looking at a lot of opportunities, being disciplined in your underwriting, manufacturing structures that reduce risk, and generally being creative.

Cover photo by Teuku Fadhil

As an urbanist and promoter of walkable, transit-oriented communities, I applaud this approach. Toronto is far from full. But I also recognize that this has restricted housing supply and shifted the market toward housing types that cost more to deliver for homebuyers and tenants. Reinforced-concrete buildings are more expensive to construct than wood-framed houses in the suburbs. The most affordable housing markets tend to have highly elastic supply.

A recent report by Frank Clayton for the C.D. Howe Institute agrees. Planning policies in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area have become disconnected from consumer preferences, limiting the kind of housing supply that people want the most: grade-related housing. The proposed solution is to increase the supply of serviced greenfield land, reduce the barriers to development, and diversify the housing types built in our traditional suburban subdivisions.

I think this is an important topic, and I have two immediate thoughts.

Firstly, is it really true that Canadians and residents in the GTHA have an overwhelming preference for grade-related housing? The 50 people who responded to my Twitter poll seem to generally think so, but as I have argued many times before on this blog, I think it's hard to know exactly right now. There could be a large segment of households who might prefer to live in a mid-rise courtyard building with a large private green space in the middle and lots of ground-floor amenities. Until this becomes an available housing option, we won't really know.

Secondly, unlocking additional greenfield land does very little to change the market forces playing out within our existing urban areas. The Toronto CMA lost about 77,500 people last year to domestic outmigration, presumably because they found greater economic opportunity and/or more affordable housing elsewhere. At the same time, 92% of the housing starts in the City of Toronto in 2025 were apartments. This is not because we're holding back greenfield land within the city proper boundaries, it's because intensification is the only option left.

The broader CMA is a different story. Only about a third of its land area is physically urbanized. The remaining two-thirds is heavily restricted by environmental protections, which is precisely where Clayton sees opportunity for more grade-related housing. “Housing policy cannot succeed if it ignores consumer demand,” says Clayton. “Canadians continue to aspire to ground-related homes. Planning for the housing people want, rather than simply counting units, is key to restoring affordability.”

I'm all for giving housing consumers as much choice as possible. Not everyone would prefer a Parisian apartment to a house in the suburbs (which is what the algorithms will tell you about me). But let's not forget that we have yet to solve this problem: How do we create attainable family-friendly housing at scale in our existing urban areas and reorient the city toward a post-car future? Toronto is now an apartment city and this is only going to become even truer, regardless of what happens on the periphery.

Change is starting to happen with our new major street and multiplex policies, which can be a form of grade-related housing. This typology is just denser, often has no parking, and is delivered in an urban, transit-supportive format rather than a car-dependent subdivision. To argue that "planning policies have missed the mark" is not wrong, but we've also been missing the mark by not building enough of what people may want within our urban areas.

Cover photo by Dillon Kydd

Today, things feel kind of similar.

According to Cushman & Wakefield, nearly 37% of the office space in downtown Seattle is now vacant. Since 2020, it is estimated that these office properties have in aggregate lost about $15 billion, or almost half, of their value. This has people repeating the regular refrain that "this time is different" and that "the office market may never come back." And indeed, the commonly held belief is that this time isn't just cyclical, it's also structural. How and where we work has changed.

But unless you believe that offices as a spatial construct will fully cease to exist at some indeterminate point in the future, then the reality is that the demand curve has simply shifted. We may not need office space in quite the same way, but we will still need some office space. This means that, at some point, we will find a new supply-and-demand equilibrium and, at some point, developers will get back to building, and overbuilding, office buildings. It's just impossible to determine when that might be.

Cover photo by Zhifei Zhou

This taxonomy reflects our bias toward single-family, grade-related housing because if you look at the distribution for a city like Toronto, it doesn't really make sense to do it in this way. For example, if we were to look at housing starts in Toronto proper for 2025, the distribution looks like this:

• Single: 5.2%

• Semi-Detached: 0.4%

• Row: 2.5%

• Apartment: 92%

If we were to look at the entire Toronto CMA, the distribution updates to the following:

• Single: 12%

• Semi-Detached: 0.5%

• Row: 14.2%

• Apartment: 72.8%

Do we really need a separate category for semi-detached houses? And would it not make sense to get a bit more granular with the apartment category given that it's basically what we're building these days? Obviously, markets vary, but in the case of Toronto, we have flipped to an apartment city.

Now, if you were to look at an aerial view of the Toronto CMA, you would see the opposite. You would see concentrations of towers surrounded by seas of low-rise housing, and you would be forgiven for thinking differently about the city. But this is a lagging indicator. The leading indicator is housing starts, and it's pretty clear what that is saying.

These are important stats to think about because they help illustrate the housing problem that needs to be solved. Last year, Toronto saw a net domestic out-migration of 77,500 people. One possible explanation is that some of these people left for more affordable, single-family housing. For the sake of argument, let's assume that's the case.

A portion of this segment may only be interested in single-family housing, and if that is the case, Toronto will never again create the housing they want at scale. But I would wager that there's another meaningful segment that would have stayed in Toronto if only they could have found housing that met their needs. And that is the opportunity that exists today for city builders.

We know that apartments are the future of Toronto, but we also know that they can take many forms, from 100-storey towers to small "missing middle" projects that are still grade-related. The housing solutions we seek are necessarily going to lie within the black box we today call "apartments."

Cover photo by Venrick Azcueta

But let's be clear: I don't have an issue with traditional architecture done well, and there are also countless examples of "modern" architecture that I think are truly abysmal. This is not about architectural tribalism. I love Paris and think it is beautiful, but I also think Brazil's equatorial brutalism is equally beautiful. Both feel authentic.

Here's how I would describe my position.

First, focusing on one style or another is not the goal. Many contemporary architects think of "style" as a bad word. It implies a superficial veneer. Great architecture aims to be something deeper and more intentional. It solves problems, responds to specific conditions, and also presents new ideas.

Second, the beauty of art, architecture, and design is that they are never created in a vacuum. They always reflect the current cultural environment. The challenge I have with traditional architecture is that I find it curious to try to speak to a moment in time that no longer exists. I am much more interested in authenticity and what the future might bring.

And third, movements take time. It's easy to romanticize the past as being better than our current environment. Whether we're talking about Impressionist painters or architecture free of ornament (in the case of modernism), it is intellectually easier to think the old ways were better. But history has shown us that posterity will almost certainly come to see things differently.

Cover photo by laura adai

How quickly things can change. In 2024, the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area was the fastest-growing region in Canada and the US. Then, last year, it lost around 1,000 people and dropped to 443rd place. See above chart. The obvious explanation is Canada's concerted effort to reduce temporary workers and international students. But actually, Toronto is still one of the top regions when it comes to net international migration, adding 53,000 people in 2025. The real story, according to recent analysis from the Centre for Urban Research and Land Development at TMU, is that Toronto has simply gotten too expensive, driving massive domestic out-migration. Last year, Toronto lost 77,500 people this way, wiping out its natural growth and its net international migration gains. This is our regular reminder that we need to be far better at delivering attainable housing at scale.

Cover photo by Frank Huang

Chart from The Globe and Mail

But here's another way of looking at the stadiums. The School of Cities at the University of Toronto recently published a study called "Transit-Oriented Stadiums." What they did was look at how well connected each stadium is to its host city by public transit. More specifically, they looked at how many people live within a 60-minute public transit isochrone polygon.

Dallas Stadium (AT&T Stadium) is in Arlington, Texas, and it has about 100,000 residents within a 60-minute transit trip:

Now, here's Toronto. BMO Field has a much smaller capacity (43,036 people), but over 2 million residents live within a 60-minute transit trip:

Mexico City's transit catchment reaches over 2.1 million people, despite its stadium being out of the core of the city:

And Vancouver takes the top spot with over 2.3 million people:

These diagrams highlight a striking divide in land-use patterns. The two key factors are stadium placement and transit investment. Obviously, if you flipped the script and mapped the number of residents within a 60-minute drive, then Dallas Stadium would perform quite differently. But bringing 70,000 people to one location via cars will never match the spatial efficiency of public transit.

Cover photo by Ronin

Diagrams from the School of Cities at the University of Toronto

Basically the way it works is that The Economist's ranking is designed to help HR departments calculate "hardship allowances" when staff are relocating overseas, whereas the Monocle survey places a much greater emphasis on questions like: Can I grab a drink at a cool bar at 2 AM on a Tuesday? It's for this reason that you won't find cities like Lisbon, Paris, and Madrid on The Economist's top 10 list.

The other not-very-surprising fact of this year's ranking is that cities in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) broadly saw the largest declines in liveability. This is due to the Iran war and deteriorating "stability" points.

Perhaps the most interesting takeaway is the rise of Asia, and in particular China. There are now 9 Asian cities in the top 20, compared to 7 cities in Europe. According to The Economist, improvements in healthcare are why Chinese cities are posting the biggest gains. Also on the movers-up list is New York, due to falling crime rates and a reduced perceived terrorism risk.

While this is certainly positive, if you'd like to dive deeper, you can download a full copy of the EIU Global Liveability Index 2026.

Cover photo by Julius Carmine

The answer is, of course, unknowable. We can all speculate based on the lack of housing starts we have seen over the past few years, when positive immigration is expected to return, and other factors, but nobody can say for sure.

As Howard Marks said on a recent Prof G Markets podcast, this is what makes investing so interesting and rewarding. There's no way to ever know all the answers!

What I think we can say about this year, though, is that the condominium market has successfully returned to price discovery. Since roughly 2022, the market has been frozen because the bid-ask spread was simply too great.

But deals are once again getting done. In June of this year, the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) reported 1,124 condominium apartment sales in Toronto and 590 sales in the suburbs. Both of these numbers represent a 14.3% year-over-year increase.

We're talking about a limited dataset, but I'm seeing and hearing from colleagues a similar dynamic play out on the new construction side of the business. End-user buyers have emerged from the sidelines and are now the dominant buyers (versus investors).

This doesn't necessarily tell us what the next few years will look like, but I suspect that when we look back on the second half of 2026, it will represent an important milestone.

Cover photo by Narciso Arellano

Chart from TRREB

"Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome." —Charlie Munger

Canada is, broadly speaking, a nation of homeowners. In the 2021 census, 66.5% of Canadians owned their own home. So, most. And this is encouraged. Owning your own home is typically viewed as a way to generate wealth, build equity, and provide tangible evidence that you have enough creditworthiness to make a mortgage payment every month.

Given the above, you could say that the majority of Canadians are incentivized to do things to protect the value of housing and, in turn, their personal net worth. But we also know that this creates an inexplicable housing paradox. We want housing to be more affordable for some, but ever more valuable to others. How exactly should we achieve this?

In this recent opinion piece in the Globe & Mail, John Turley-Ewart argues that the recent announcement in Vancouver translates into housing no longer being a home. Rather, it has become a "supply-managed good in a protected industry," similar to dairy and telecom in this country. So: "The result will be a country where homeownership is reserved for the few by design. It shouldn’t be that way."

Here's a thought exercise: Why would it be a problem if Canada's homeownership rate dropped to, say, one-third — the same rate as Switzerland? Is it because housing should appreciate faster than the rate of inflation and generate wealth for Canadians, or is it simply because pride of ownership is good for people's moral well-being? If it's the former, well, then the argument eats its own tail.

We are saying we want housing to be more affordable so more people can own it, but if it were constantly depreciating (getting cheaper), or even just appreciating at the rate of inflation, should people even want to own it? Why not just rent and invest the down payment elsewhere to earn greater returns? That's what the Swiss do by and large.

I believe the more precise argument being made in the Globe & Mail is that housing has simply gotten too expensive for middle-class incomes, so what we need is less government meddling and a reset before the market begins to re-appreciate in favor of the 66.5% of Canadians who are invested. While I certainly agree with the basic idea that we need to stop overtaxing new housing and reset our development cost structures, let's not ignore our clear housing paradox.

In Canada, we view housing as an investment, and that runs counter to the idea that housing should be as affordable as possible to the greatest number of people. As we know, this viewpoint isn't the same everywhere. Japan, for instance, has historically viewed housing as a consumer good. You bought it new, or built it new, when you needed it, and once you were done with it, the expectation was that there wouldn't be many buyers for it.

As recently as 2013, the percentage of existing housing transactions as a share of the overall housing market in Japan was only 14.7%, compared to over 89% in the US (2010 figure). The government has since worked to get this number up, but it shows a distinct historical view of housing. It also led to more daring residential architecture. If you're not concerned about what the next buyer might think, you become a little more free-willed.

The point of this post is not to pass a value judgement on any one approach; rather, it is to point out that there are many different ways to think about housing. Deciding the precise outcome we want is always going to be helpful in determining the right solutions.

Cover photo by Aditya Chinchure

Swiss housing occupancy status diagram from the FSO

Japan charts from the White Paper on Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism in Japan 2015

The machine itself would scan whatever the crows brought in, and if it was, in fact, a dirty butt, the machine automatically dispensed a small piece of food, such as a peanut. And because crows are social animals, the thinking was that they would then run and tell their friends, "Hey, I found us a great dinner spot!"

It's an alluring and unexpected concept. The hope was to slash the city's annual cleaning bill by getting the crows to do our dirty work. And that's why this "new pilot" seems to go viral periodically. But the reality is that Corvid Cleaning filed for bankruptcy in 2025 and, as far as I'm aware, this has in no way taken off as a viable solution for keeping our streets free of cigarettes.

The obvious problem is that cigarette butts are highly toxic, and so encouraging animals to transport them around is a suboptimal solution. Supposedly, crows are also a little too smart, and they started to try to game the system. Regardless, the prototype is dead. If only more of us could be like the Japanese, and not throw our garbage on the street.

Cover photo by Fatemeh Heidari

But after I said this, our landscape architect looked at me and simply said, "No, it doesn't work, not in our climate." And that was it.

Of all the people in the room, I thought I could get the landscape architect excited about this suggestion, but nope. It got immediately shot down, and for good reason.

The greenery would be dead here in Toronto for not an insignificant part of the year, and the additional dead loads created by water-saturated soil and structural planters raise questions about whether it's the most sustainable way to build tall buildings.

But there are climates where green towers make a lot more sense, namely in places like Brazil. In fact, São Paulo rewards developers for integrating features such as green facades.

Here's a specific project example: The Rosewood Hotel in São Paulo, designed by Jean Nouvel. The 25-storey tower features an extensive lattice system on its exterior that, over time, is expected to fill in with greenery from adjacent roof gardens.

The hotel opened in 2022, and street view images from 2024 reveal that it still has some growing to do, but clearly it's a popular idea. I was just in the wrong city.

Photos via Rosewood São Paulo

As I understand it, this evaporative cooling technique can lower nearby surface temperatures by 5°C to 8°C within minutes, and it uses significantly less electricity than air conditioning.

This, by the way, is the same scientific principle behind how sweat cools human skin. We sweat, the sweat then evaporates, and in the process it helps to lower our body temperature.

But the obvious question here is: Doesn't this waste a bunch of water?

Generally, these systems tend to rely on (1) very fine mists of water (so as little water as is necessary) and (2) collected rainwater and/or recycled greywater. The general idea is to just lower surface temperatures so that less air conditioning is needed.

Next, it becomes a question of electricity saved vs. water consumed. A study done on a 5-storey apartment building in Osaka found that outdoor misting reduced the building's cooling loads by an average of 36%, and from a financial standpoint, the value of the electricity saved was greater than the cost of the water consumed.

Importantly, it also helped reduce the overall urban heat island effect in the area. The amount of waste heat trapped in the nearby city streets decreased by over 60%.

Hotter streets are a byproduct of air conditioning because the cooling process effectively sucks heat out of interior spaces and transfers it outside. Misting counteracts that and also reduces peak AC loads.

So, as wild as these sweating towers may appear online, there is some logic behind them.

Cover photo via this Twitter post

Here's a penthouse example completed in 2023 that was designed by David Kohn Architects for Baylight Properties.

What I think I glean from the plans is that the building's existing elevator and exit stair were extended up into the new penthouse space, and a new internal stair was added within the penthouse. This would have required a great deal of coordination to minimize disruption to the existing building. Presumably, they built the new shaft extension, got everything ready, and then shut down the elevator for the shortest possible period of time to switch everything over. The existing building is only 4 floors, so it's not the end of the world.

As an aside, Baylight Properties has other rooftop projects underway, including the Sky Houses at Ransome's Dock. I also very much appreciate the ethos of the firm. On their website, they clearly state: "Our overwhelming interest has been to combine the harsh realities of business with all the benefits good architecture bring." It sounds a lot like how we think about our approach at Globizen. Maybe it's time we also start looking at some rooftops.

Project photograph by Will Pryce via David Kohn Architects

Plans from David Kohn Architects

Summer is reaching its zenith with a high of 32 degrees expected here in Toronto today. I know that everyone thinks their city is the best when it's hot and sunny outside, but I do think there's something magical about Toronto in the summer. One thing I always look forward to is the feeling of riding a bicycle around the city on a hot and humid night.

On top of this summer euphoria, it was just announced that Kawhi Leonard will be returning to the Toronto Raptors, presumably because he wants to win another championship and he misses Toronto. So, I'm fairly certain that real estate in the city just appreciated 5% over the last 24 hours.

If you're looking for something city-building-related to dig into, here's an interesting report from CBRE on global data centre trends. It specifically looks at the 4 largest markets in North America, Asia-Pacific, Europe, and Latin America. (It's a reminder that Canada needs to step up!)

Latin America led year-over-year global growth (as of Q1 2026) with a 41.3% jump in inventory (primarily Mexico). Meanwhile, the world's largest data centre market (Northern Virginia) saw its vacancy rate drop to an all-time low of 0.3%.

Overall, power availability and grid infrastructure continue to constrain new supply, and that is expected to persist beyond 2030. The tech industry is not used to being fettered by physical constraints, but we're seeing that today with the practical end of "zero marginal cost."

Enjoy the day, everyone.

Cover photo by Mayur Arvind on Unsplash

Inventory chart from CBRE

A brand-new report from Transport & Environment found that over the last 25 years in the EU, the UK, and Norway, the average newly-sold car has increased in length by 1.2 cm per year, in height by 0.5 cm per year, and in width by 0.5 cm per year.

But it's not necessarily because buyers are looking to fit more kids and car seats. Average household sizes have fallen in the US, so it's similar to housing: people are having fewer kids and, therefore, want to consume bigger homes (and cars). My cursory understanding is that there tends to be some gamesmanship with car sizes and emissions targets, but I do also think it's a case of consumers just wanting bigger and better.

For those of us who deal in the built environment, this is an important trend to consider because larger cars (1) tend to kill more pedestrians and (2) take up more space in our cities. The report estimates that, if current trends continue, European cities could lose between 8.5 and 14% of their on-street parking spaces by 2040.

Small marginal changes of only a few centimetres may not seem material on an individual basis, but when you layer on pedestrian deaths, urban parking constraints and traffic congestion, it only strengthens the case for the Tokyo model of urbanism.

Cover photo by Oleksandr Voloshchenko on Unsplash

Slides from Transport & Environment

If you're a regular follower of the magazine and/or its quality-of-life survey, you'll know that North American cities don't generally fare well in this ranking. This year, the only one to appear is Vancouver. You'll also know that there are some usual suspects that appear near the top (here comes the spoiler). This year's top city is Tokyo.

One of its standout features, yet again, is its liveability and orderliness despite being one of the largest urban regions in the world. But there's also talk about some of its grandiose city-building initiatives, one of which includes the new Takanawa Gateway City.

The 13-hectare (32-acre) development is a transformation of a former rail yard in south Tokyo into what is being called a futuristic "global gateway." The megaproject includes retail, office, hotel, residential, and cultural uses, plus a 1.1-kilometre elevated pedestrian promenade that stitches it all together.

There are also autonomous mobility devices called "iino" that actively roam the district and offer pedestrians free, futuristic rides. Here's a video and an image from JapanStation:

We talk a lot on this blog about Tokyo's granular, small-scale urbanism. But obviously the city also builds big, though it's not exactly what you'd find in other cities. For one thing, the development is vertical in a way that is difficult to achieve outside of cities like Tokyo.

Here's a comprehensive walking tour of the district. At 42:02, you'll see a rooftop public space that is extremely well used, especially given that the development only recently opened. I also find it remarkable that so many people in the video have taken their shoes off to use the free, public foot bath.

Could you imagine doing that in your city? It's perhaps a perfect example of how Tokyo miraculously pulls off being both big and liveable.

Cover photo by Tsuyoshi Kozu on Unsplash

The political reasons for doing so are obvious. Going back to the 1950s when it was first used as a residence, no Prime Minister has wanted to spend taxpayer money on what effectively amounts to a house reno for themselves. And so the status quo has persisted. But then last Friday, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that the house will finally be renovated by way of (1) a design competition and (2) private donations. Importantly, only individuals will be able to donate (no corporations), all donations will be made public, and no single donation can exceed 10% of the total project cost.

Not surprisingly, opposition leader Pierre Poilievre responded by arguing that renovating 24 Sussex should absolutely not be a government priority while Canadians face a housing and overall affordability crisis. My view is that it makes a lot of sense to have an official prime ministerial residence that is actually habitable by human beings. I also think that Build Canada raises an interesting point about this: What does it say about Canada that we have not been able to achieve this for one of our national symbols?

Excerpt from Build Canada:

In countries with confident, reasonably secure national identities, the maintenance of official institutions isn’t a political risk, it’s an expectation. Nobody asks the French president to apologize for maintaining the Élysée. Nobody expects the British prime minister to crowdfund Chequers. These are national institutions, and their upkeep is understood as a basic obligation of government. Citizens in those countries would be more alarmed by neglect than by expenditure. Even in the United States, the concern over what Donald Trump is doing to the White House and the National Mall stems from the fact that these things are seen as belonging to all Americans as a meaningful part of their national symbolism. The fact that Canadian politicians spent decades calculating that voters would punish them for fixing 24 Sussex reveals something very disturbing about how this country sees its own symbols and institutions.

Raising money from private donors is the obvious hack to try and make this politically palatable. But all of this remains a fascinating design and political problem. What should 24 Sussex be? The Élysée Palace is 118,000 square feet of lavish opulence on 3.7 acres, and the White House is 55,000 square feet on 18 acres, excluding the wings and Trump's gold Home Depot decorations. Should 24 Sussex be something equally impressive and internationally significant? Then maybe it would appear in movies and get blown up by alien invaders from Mars. We have 5.3 acres to work with here.

Alternatively, the government could be frugal stewards of Canadian taxpayer money and either leave the house vacant (or maybe the Ottawa rats still live there?) or opt for a simple interior renovation using only materials and finishes readily available from the local Home Hardware store. We could hire a guy with a dog and a van from the neighbourhood and make it as cheap as possible to ensure that no Canadian gets too bothered. Yeah, I suppose we could do that, but let's not forget that architecture is always a reflection of the zeitgeist of the time and what a society values the most.

What do Canadians value the most?

Cover photo by Robbie Palmer on Unsplash