This choice is part of an all-out assault on the esthetics of the city as well as its history.

OTTAWA CITIZEN | OPINION, by Desmond Mills

Recently, the National Capital Commission (NCC) chose its preferred design for the replacement of an Ottawa landmark, the Alexandra Bridge. It is true that the structure has seen better days. The elegant steel truss span was built between 1898 and 1901 by the Canadian Pacific Railway and has become a beloved part of the Ottawa skyline (as seen from the Canadian Museum of History). The salient position of the bridge at a bend in the river offers unparalleled views of Parliament Hill and a pleasant connection for pedestrians walking from Ottawa to Gatineau.

The eventual loss of the heritage bridge in 2028 would be a shame, as the Alexandra Bridge is to Ottawa what the Jacques Cartier Bridge is to Montreal or the Quebec Bridge is to Quebec City. At the time of its construction, the bridge’s main span was the longest in Canada and the fourth-longest in the world. Due to its outstanding heritage value, it was named a National Historic Civil Engineering Site in June 1995 by the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering (CSCE). Interestingly enough, the two other bridges mentioned above have been the recipients of generous restorations funds, with the latter being awarded $40 million for its preservation and heaped with lavish praise by the prime minister himself who called it a “source of pride for the people of Quebec City and all Canadians.”

I would argue that the Alexandra Bridge deserves the same treatment.

This being said, the eventual loss of the bridge, albeit tragic, has been compounded by a second tragedy: a modern replacement with a design referred to as “sinuous” by a planner for its curvaceous figure. Like a bad condo project, hastily foisted on the public by a lazy developer, this concept for the bridge was given a tacky name: “Motion.”

Esthetically, the new structure would ditch the retro railway heritage feel for something more contemporary that would be more akin to the Vimy Memorial Bridge found in the south end of the city. So far, reception has been sour. A prominent member of the Lowertown Community Association has stated that it was his least favourite design from a series of options and that the public consultation process was a façade.

What is happening with this bridge is not unique. The Ottawa riverscape and parliamentary precinct has seen a series of unpopular and strange design changes to key vistas over the past few years. It all amounts to an all-out assault on the esthetics of the city as well as its history.

So far, we have seen the loss of the stone façade of the Cliff Heating Plants, plans for a modern addition to the Château Laurier; and a revamped Nepean Point (now Kìweckì Point) that looks like a concrete UFO and that has pushed the statue of the great explorer to the side, off from the perch on which he stood for the last 150 years.

The fact that this bridge project has been associated with the NCC only adds salt to the wound. For an organization that touts itself as “conserving our cultural heritage,” the NCC has failed to do exactly that. Industry is part of Ottawa’s foundational DNA and the erasure of our industrial heritage, starting with LeBreton Flats and extending to the Alexandra Bridge today should concern all Ottawa citizens.

In his book The Architecture of Community, the famed Luxembourgian architect Léon Krier states that “Modernism in art and architecture seeks to impose itself upon the public and the authorities not by the superiority of its propositions but by the violence of its promises … ” He continues by saying that it is a “declaration of war on all traditional cultures.” It should be no surprise that such an ugly monstrosity is being forced onto the Ottawa public. After all, Modernism seeks to create a clean break with the past and one way to break away from the past is by making it disappear altogether.

There are a few key issues that should be considered. Experts and consultants working for Public Services and Procurement Canada and the NCC have said that keeping the bridge is not viable. Yet many iconic bridges around the world are much older; for example, the elegant Dom Luís I Bridge in Porto dates from 1886. If I am to take these experts at their word that a new bridge is absolutely necessary, why not rebuild the structure as it was or at least something that is faithful to original? If not, why not a bridge that pays homage to the elegant steel truss design in a way that is different but more faithful to the original?

Finally, why should we trust organizations that seem hell-bent on destroying our heritage, despite their role of preserving it?

Desmond Mills is an engineer and aspiring historian. A longtime Ottawa resident, he is interested in urban issues, politics and culture.