This week saw the news that Rideau Cottage, “temporary” home of the prime minister, is “inadequate.” The house is small and insufficiently secure for a head of government.

While I’m not inclined to argue that politicians ought to be living large at taxpayer expense as a rule, I’m embarrassed that the country routinely wrings its hands over where the prime minister lives and how he travels. Politicians need certain tools to do the job of governing a contemporary mass state. Debates about housing or travel, such as they are, don’t reflect serious disagreements over public policy or even our shared or disputed values. Instead, they’re occasions for nitpicking, pettiness, and supreme displays of insecurity. They’re silly and bad for us.

Today, Prime Minister Mark Carney is living at Rideau Cottage, just as Justin Trudeau did before him. He’s there because the official residence of the prime minister, 24 Sussex Drive, is a mess. It’s literally uninhabitable. The good news is that, in February 2024, the home was declared rodent and asbestos free. The bad news is that’s a declaration one hopes a G7 country wouldn’t have to make. It’s the sort of thing that ought to be implicit. Does your head of government live in a house full of carcinogens and rat droppings? Of course not! Why would you even ask? For a long time, Canada did have to ask the question, and the answer speaks to a national smallness that ought to be understood as a big shame.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] krellor@fedia.io 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

50% probably wouldn't be enough, but I don't know that details of residential development well enough. I think that baking it on size and amenities more than cost to determine if it is reasonable might be better.

Doing a one off upgrade/remodel/rebuild is always more expensive per unit or sqft than a large development that follows variations on one design and overhead diffuses costs over many units.

Add in custom design for security, which probably includes fire suppression, gardening against attack, and security infrastructure, and you are likely much more than 50% over market per sqft of remodeled space.

But you can compare features more readily. If it has five kitchens, a grand entrance with marble columns and a double stairwell, then it's well into luxury wants and not living and hosting needs plus security.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Im pretty sure the house is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs to make it secure and suited for its purpose. Like hundreds of % above market.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah that's a fair point, to be honest it's hard to gauge, I suppose public proposals withholding the security details, would be a good start