[St. John's] The Official Project Thread

[SignalHillHiker]

I agree completely. The blocks surrounding my Prince of Wales Street are a perfect example - there's nothing wrong with the buildings, it's just that many of them have vinyl siding. That makes them look (to our eyes) cheaper and poorer than their clapboard-clad cousins elsewhere in the city.

The sad thing is, when the old clapboard was taken off and the vinyl put on, these neighbourhoods were the nicer ones.

Completely agree with banning vinyl.

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I agree completely. The blocks surrounding my Prince of Wales Street are a perfect example - there's nothing wrong with the buildings, it's just that many of them have vinyl siding. That makes them look (to our eyes) cheaper and poorer than their clapboard-clad cousins elsewhere in the city.

The sad thing is, when the old clapboard was taken off and the vinyl put on, these neighbourhoods were the nicer ones.

Completely agree with banning vinyl.

lol I agree completely but then people have a hard time accepting the strict regulations in heritage areas as it is .. I doubt that some of the lower income residents will have the resources to not only completely change the exterior of the homes but maintain it as well. However I do agree that it's much nicer when there isn't vinyl

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

lol I agree completely but then people have a hard time accepting the strict regulations in heritage areas as it is .. I doubt that some of the lower income residents will have the resources to not only completely change the exterior of the homes but maintain it as well. However I do agree that it's much nicer when there isn't vinyl

I would propose either banning vinyl anywhere downtown but even elsewhere in the City. Banning in the heritage district seems like a given.

It could also be proposed to tax vinyl siding so that if someone insists on using it, they have to pay a premium above the cost of wooden clapboard, brick or other building materials. It would also provide some revenue for the City while not completely depriving people from their right to choose.

And I wouldn't suggest people need to change what's already there, but I would propose that any new buildings/houses have clapboard and any re-clads be done in clapboard.

I think that it's something that could be done everywhere in the City. It's part of our collective culture and heritage. I would support having some vinyl-tax or ban on vinyl siding on new developments and re-clads everywhere in the City.

[mrjanejacobs]

However, it's unclear whether the City of St.John's has the power to tax vinyl siding (another reason supporting the need for a review and overhaul of the legislation empowering the City.

[jeddy1989]

edit: posted in wrong place

[mrjanejacobs]

huh

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

lol

?

[mrjanejacobs]

Originally Posted by jeddy1989

edit: posted in wrong place

haha - ok. I really didn't see my comment being lol-worthy.

[Arrakis]

I don't mind that vinyl siding being banned on heritage properties downtown but banning it outright everywhere is a bit over the top. It would certainly increase the price of new homes if they had to put wood siding on it instead of vinyl.

[mrjanejacobs]

Based on how much housing is already, the cost of changing the cladding will have a marginal influence on the market value.

With that said, I hesitate on banning in any case, but if some kind of tax could be imposed, that could be interesting. But I agree - downtown is the focus. However, vinyl siding (anywhere) is ugly as 🞵🞵🞵🞵 and people are adopting it because it's the default more than anything. My parents redid their cladding a few years ago and put vinyl on, their rationale: "we never thought about it, how much would clapboard be?" haha

[Townie709]

Banning vinyl siding in heritage areas downtown makes sense, but banning it in other areas and new subdivisions is just stupid. It's not fair to force people to use a more expensive material that is a much bigger hassle to maintain that often doesn't work as well for no reason whatsoever. It's fine for heritage preservation but forcing it on everyone else makes no sense. It's like forcing people who bought an iPad to throw it out and go but a pad of gold bordered paper. It looks nicer, does less and costs more.

Inside heritage should be clapboard, outside heritage should be the owners choice.

[jeddy1989]

Originally Posted by Townie709

Banning vinyl siding in heritage areas downtown makes sense, but banning it in other areas and new subdivisions is just stupid. It's not fair to force people to use a more expensive material that is a much bigger hassle to maintain that often doesn't work as well for no reason whatsoever. It's fine for heritage preservation but forcing it on everyone else makes no sense. It's like forcing people who bought an iPad to throw it out and go but a pad of gold bordered paper. It looks nicer, does less and costs more.

Inside heritage should be clapboard, outside heritage should be the owners choice.

I have to say that I agree wit you, even though it would be nice f everyone built stone spires and recladed their houses to look like the supreme court building, it may not make sense nor be fair to try to force property owners into doing that (in the heritage are it makes sense due to the look and historic feel of the area, however it wouldn't really fly out in rabbittown, the east end, southlands nor airport heights)

There is even vinyl siding that does not look bad. My parents house has it and it looks really good and is red ... doesn't have to be the cheap outdated beige/grey/pink lol

[SignalHillHiker]

It doesn't look bad if it's properly cut as well. The yellow house in the picture that started this discussion, for example, is CLEARLY covered in scraps. The one on the left looks much better, despite having an outdated colour.

[brack]

There's a lot of nice vinyl on the market these days, some of has a nice wood look to it as well. I have clapboard on my house and it looks great but upkeep is a pain in the 🞵🞵🞵. A lot of problem is that people use cheap vinyl which fades fast and looks terrible.

[mrjanejacobs]

Your analogy to an iPad is nonsensical. haha

I think you're slightly misinformed for such a strong opinion (ie. "it's stupid"). The cost difference is not actually that different. In fact, plywood clapboard is cheaper than vinyl and wood clapboard is about the same cost as vinyl. The real difference is in maintenance. However, it depends on how you look at it. Vinyl insulates less well than clapboard so you're paying more in the long run to keep your house heated (developers don't care about that because operational costs aren't their concern). However, clapboard is prone to warping and requires retaining and repainting every 4-10 years. It's not as simple as you're proposing - both claddings have advantages.

With that said, I think there's something to be said about our collective identity as a place. Historically, salt-box houses are made of wood and so are the majority of rural houses in NL... I don't think we can so quickly abandon our collective heritage for the sake of efficiency. It is certainly not for 'no reason whatsoever'.

I agree - I don't want to take the choice away. I want to make wooden clapboard a competitive alternative to vinyl siding with a tax which closes the cost discrepancy (if there is one). Alternatively, the City could offer tax-incentives or rebates for homes that opt for wooden cladding (however, I'm not too keen on this idea).

A comparison can be found here:

http://www.qualitysmith.com/request/articles/articles-siding/home-siding-estimates/

However, values are quotes in US Dollars.

[Architype]

Sorry guys, you can't just ban vinyl siding no matter how horrendous it is (except in the heritage areas). Fiber cement siding is a much better choice though as it looks more like real wood, and as for proper clapboard or wood shingle siding, people just don't want to have to maintain (paint or stain) it every couple of years. In certain "other" places there tends to be lots of stucco cladding which provides visual relief from the mundane wood or vinyl and can actually look very good and "clean" if the building is designed properly for it, but this is very foreign to St. John's. There also used to be more brick commonly used in SJ's, but I don't see much of it anymore, which is very unfortunate IMO.

However - I think vinyl should be banned on any multiple unit buildings where it just looks terrible/tacky and ugly/cheap.

Edit: However, there are developments in Vanc. where I live where vinyl would never be allowed (by law).

[mrjanejacobs]

To repeat, I am in fact very uncomfortable forcing people to do something with their home (except for heritage districts) however, there are lots of ways that a government can encourage something like exterior cladding without 'forcing'/'banning' it. Such as taxes, incentives, etc.

[SignalHillHiker]

I have no trouble telling people: "Hey, the s**t you want to cover your house with is ugly. You can't."

In Bermuda (Hamilton is so much like a tropical St. John's it's almost scary - even the bar culture is the same), they're even more strict than we are. They even give out warnings to people whose cars show signs of rust requiring them to get it fixed or face a fine.

[mrjanejacobs]

Guys - the City of St.John's really isn't that strict about development. They have rules in the downtown but it's nothing that extremist... St.John's is actually a City with extremely deregulated development comparatively speaking (as you may have noticed our City is a planning-mess because of it). Many of you are acting as if imposing rules or regulations on how people build their homes is so experimental - it's really not. Canadian cities are doing it across the country and are building much nicer cities than our own, because of it.

[Architype]

One way you can easily make a case against vinyl is that it's not environmentally friendly, therefore a tax is not a bad idea.