By Josiah Frith
In the heart of Ottawa, where the Rideau Canal’s historic locks stand as a testament to early Canadian engineering prowess, another landmark — the Alexandra Bridge — faces an uncertain future. This bridge, once a marvel of industrial innovation, now symbolizes the challenge of preserving our architectural heritage in the face of modern urban development.
The Alexandra Bridge has been a defining feature of the Ottawa-Gatineau skyline for over 120 years. Originally built to accommodate rail, horse, and carriage traffic, it now serves thousands of pedestrians and cyclists annually, as well as vehicular traffic. Despite its historical significance and the role it plays in the daily lives of residents, the bridge has been deemed to have reached the end of its service life. It is slated for replacement, a process quoted to take four years beginning in 2028. There has still not been a full environmental assessment done, so the actual process could be much longer. The safe removal and relocation of industrial sediment, in some spots as deep as 15 m, which has settled at the base of the piers has not been resolved. The impact of demolition on fragile ecosystems that have adapted to the existing bridge over the past 120 years has not been properly assessed.
Why can preservation not be an option?
The National Capital Commission (NCC), in partnership with Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), is leading an engagement process for the bridge’s replacement. This includes a series of public consultations and the establishment of an independent review panel (IRP) by the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC). Yet, we still have not seen an independent engineers report on the reasons why restoration is impossible. The IRP, comprised of professionals with expertise in multiple disciplines, is tasked with reviewing technical aspects and recommending a preferred concept design but this group will not see any design plan that includes preservation or restoration of the existing bridge, because the NCC and PSPC will not prepare one. So, we will never know what they think of the idea, or why demolition was needed in the first place.
The community takes action
The decision to replace the bridge has sparked debate among residents, environmentalists, and heritage enthusiasts. Many argue that the bridge’s modular design and historical value warrant a thorough exploration of restoration possibilities. They question why the review process does not include a restoration proposal, suggesting that such an option could provide an environmentally sustainable and cost-effective alternative to complete replacement.
The NCC’s approval of design principles for the new bridge, which emphasize sustainability, heritage protection, and public transit, suggests a willingness to honour the legacy of the Alexandra Bridge. Yet, the absence of restoration as an option has led to a call for transparency surrounding the reasons why the bridge must be replaced instead of restored.
In addition, a re-evaluation of the criteria for the bridge’s future use to prefer active use over vehicular traffic should be considered. Why would the PSPC and NCC seek to increase the capacity of this new bridge, when we have been advocating for decades to remove through traffic from our neighbourhood? Why would they not choose to fulfill their other mandates of heritage protection, sustainable development, and a car-free downtown by transforming this bridge into an active use oasis with future repairs and retrofits to, once again, welcome a train or tram, as has been talked about in Gatineau for some time now?
As the NCC moves forward with its plans, the public’s voice must be a crucial component. A Public Advisory Group (PAG) ,of which the Lowertown Community Association is a part, has been formed but it has become abundantly clear that our opposition to demolition is considered to be irrelevant to the PSPC and NCC as they do not want to hear about anything other than replacement of this bridge. It is worth noting that formal consultations about the bridge began during the chaos of the Covid shutdowns of 2020, when it was very difficult to get the public out to a presentation.
We must ensure that all perspectives are considered. We continue to demand that a restoration option be submitted to the IRP, alongside their other replacement options. If it is truly a bad option, this independent panel should have no problem determining that. The community’s attachment to the Alexandra Bridge is not merely nostalgic – it is a reflection of the value placed on our shared history with our friends across the river and the desire to see it preserved for future generations. The cost of restoration should not only be measured in dollars spent. A walk across this bridge is a walk through history. It is a timeless cityscape that begs to be saved for generations to come. We, in our community, know that heritage is a long game. We don’t know what landmarks and structures we will miss until they are gone, and what lessons they still have to teach us and our children in the future.