Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[suburbanite]

Today I learned that CIBC used to have a very nice logo.

I hate the fact that CIBC Square is going to have that stupid red box on the nice glass fins.

[Zeej]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I wonder if that great view will ever be marred by a gigantic air conditioner-style addition on the back of the Château Laurier.

I expect that sooner or later it will.

Where there's a will, in the form of a determined, deep-pocketed, private sector owner-developer, there's usually a way.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Ottawa sunrise.


https://twitter.com/Ottawa_Tourism/status/1271166318952304644

Rendering of the Château Laurier expansion from a similar angle.


https://archpaper.com/2019/10/architectsalliances-chateau-laurier-rejected/

[MolsonExport]

Who could possibly think that was a good idea?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Who could possibly think that was a good idea?

Most developers only care about the $.

I've had a few bad experiences with my hometown that are starting to drive me to think like this too (previously, I'd never ever have considered doing anything of which I wouldn't be proud). I'm not surprised most people think like that; it's really simpler and makes your life easier.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Who could possibly think that was a good idea?

Barbarians at the gate... and often they come dressed in a suit and tie.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

Most developers only care about the $.

I've had a few bad experiences with my hometown that are starting to drive me to think like this too (previously, I'd never ever have considered doing anything of which I wouldn't be proud). I'm not surprised most people think like that; it's really simpler and makes your life easier.

Since there is no accounting for taste, I tend to be inclined to let developers/promoters/residential homeowners build whatever they want on their land provided it corresponds to the prescribed zoning usage and it does not cause a *practical* problem (overloading infrastructure, etc.). I am also relatively open to zoning amendments if they can be justified.

That said, there are limits to this. Some historic areas should be protected, and I think the Château Laurier given its historic, architecture and prominent position in vistas would definitely be one of those.

But only a tiny portion of urban Canada is like that. So I don't think our developers have much to complain about.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Most developers only care about the $.

I've had a few bad experiences with my hometown that are starting to drive me to think like this too (previously, I'd never ever have considered doing anything of which I wouldn't be proud). I'm not surprised most people think like that; it's really simpler and makes your life easier.

Cities really need to craft incentives that drive developers to build good stuff. Most Canadian cities are terrible at this, and rely on a combination of complicated bad rules and complaining that doesn't work well.

The anti-development crowd also typically makes it worse by creating a simple narrative of evil greedy developers. If you're going to be pilloried no matter what you do, you might as well make some money.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Since there is no accounting for taste, I tend to be inclined to let developers/promoters/residential homeowners build whatever they want on their land provided it corresponds to the prescribed zoning usage and it does not cause a *practical* problem (overloading infrastructure, etc.).

"Problem" with this approach is that it obviously results in ugly cities.

But yeah, it's easier, no doubt.

I used to be a bit jealous of my uncle who was active in real estate in Laval because I felt he could just do anything and not care (i.e. was free to focus on whatever was the most lucrative, with no other considerations) while I was limited by what my conscience would allow me to do in somewhat-historic Downtown Sherbrooke (which I'd have felt bad disfiguring for more $, at the time).

But only a tiny portion of urban Canada is like that. So I don't think our developers have much to complain about.

Of course they don't have anything to complain about! They can build shit and they aren't held to much (if any) standards. Basic building codes only - architecturally it's a free for all.

[someone123]

It is a classic tragedy of the commons. If your building is cheap and ugly on the outside with nice private amenities and panoramic views of beautiful neighbouring buildings or public spaces, that is perfectly acceptable to buyers and profitable for developers. If everybody follows the strategy in a downtown area eventually everything ends up ugly.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Since there is no accounting for taste, I tend to be inclined to let developers/promoters/residential homeowners build whatever they want on their land provided it corresponds to the prescribed zoning usage and it does not cause a *practical* problem (overloading infrastructure, etc.). I am also relatively open to zoning amendments if they can be justified.

So you'd be OK with this reno then on the house next to you on your cul de sac.

[Calgarian]

Who wouldn't like that house on their street? I wouldn't live in it, but it would be fun to watch peoples faces as they drive by it!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

So you'd be OK with this reno then on the house next to you on your cul de sac.

If one day you wanted to demolish it you could hire a Monty Python and the Holy Grail type team of crusaders to take it down with flaming arrows and trebuchet volleys. Think of the YouTube hits.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

So you'd be OK with this reno then on the house next to you on your cul de sac.

Though I don't live on a cul-de-sac , the answer is that I wouldn't be thrilled by it but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal just because it's ugly.

There are lots of things that displease me that I don't necessarily think should be illegal.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is a classic tragedy of the commons. If your building is cheap and ugly on the outside with nice private amenities and panoramic views of beautiful neighbouring buildings or public spaces, that is perfectly acceptable to buyers and profitable for developers. If everybody follows the strategy in a downtown area eventually everything ends up ugly.

But how can you reconcile that with the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Some people actually do think that those flying saucer multiplex cinemas look good, or at least that they look good.

Policing good taste sounds pretty arbitrary to me. Sure you can argue that certain historic districts have their character and mandate that a certain style be respected, based on what's already there.

But most of the country is like Kingston Road in east end Toronto or Mountain Road in Moncton...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

"Problem" with this approach is that it obviously results in ugly cities.

But yeah, it's easier, no doubt.

I used to be a bit jealous of my uncle who was active in real estate in Laval because I felt he could just do anything and not care (i.e. was free to focus on whatever was the most lucrative, with no other considerations) while I was limited by what my conscience would allow me to do in somewhat-historic Downtown Sherbrooke (which I'd have felt bad disfiguring for more $, at the time).


Of course they don't have anything to complain about! They can build shit and they aren't held to much (if any) standards. Basic building codes only - architecturally it's a free for all.

I guess my comments might betray the fact that I've probably thrown in the towel in terms of (most of) our cities.

Though in fairness I do think they are getting (a bit) better in most parts of the country.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But how can you reconcile that with the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Mostly property values or where people tend to go when they are free to travel where they want.

It is hard to argue that Kingston Road has a similar appeal to Venice or Paris.

I'd guess you'd need a somewhat particular buyer for that fake castle house.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

It is a classic tragedy of the commons. If your building is cheap and ugly on the outside with nice private amenities and panoramic views of beautiful neighbouring buildings or public spaces, that is perfectly acceptable to buyers and profitable for developers. If everybody follows the strategy in a downtown area eventually everything ends up ugly.

Something that I've grown to really dislike: those horrible Vancouver Specials infesting every single neighborhood.

They're just everywhere:

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2793392,...dmP0Ux7WMGY_8caZtaJrg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I'm fine with entire 1970s neighborhoods of them, but they're really an eyesore in neighborhoods where they don't belong (example above).

Whoever built that one on that lot did not care about anything but profit.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Whoever built that one on that lot did not care about anything but profit.

Vancouver has a pretty unattractive stock of older buildings and housing. There are a lot of nice Craftsmen bungalows out there and some nice old apartment buildings but there are also lots of plain 60's walkups and ugly Vancouver Specials even in most older neighbourhoods. About 1/2 of the old commercial building stock is crumbling in the DTES.

It somehow seems worse when you factor in how expensive these buildings are. There are lots of dreary $2M houses. The older parts of Seattle and Portland tend to look nicer than Vancouver, and the type of house you can afford on a professional salary in Seattle or Portland is much nicer than Vancouver.

I will add a caveat though which is that metro Vancouver has a lot of residential streets that also serve as arteries (e.g. 12th) and these tend to be both uglier and more visible than average. The lack of highways might contribute to this phenomenon.

Vancouver also has better than average new buildings.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by someone123

Mostly property values or where people tend to go when they are free to travel where they want.

It is hard to argue that Kingston Road has a similar appeal to Venice or Paris.
.

There is definitely some proof in that pudding but it's hard to translate that into viable public policy, regulations, etc.