Ugly Canada 2 (Only architecture, planning and design faux pas) - Page 6

Gresto · #**101** Posted **Oct 28, 2018, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Curious what you guys think of these infill projects... they're both in older neighbourhoods. I can't tell if the heritage elements are tacky to visitors or not.

This one is in Georgestown. It has garages, which is rare for the neighbourhood.

I'm quite fond of them, especially with the wooden porches, but the side wall would look better with windows.

yaletown_fella · #**102** Posted **Oct 28, 2018, 9:34 PM**

That charcoal grey faux "stacked stone" on those townhomes is awful.

The single family home isnt that bad.

kwoldtimer · #**103** Posted **Oct 28, 2018, 10:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gresto

I'm quite fond of them, especially with the wooden porches, but the side wall would look better with windows.

I don't understand the placement of the front doors at all. They should be set down at the ground level, not a half-storey up. The wooden porches, imho, are gross. And yes, the lack of windows on the side of the end unit does seem like a wasted opportunity.

Architype · #**104** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 2:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Curious what you guys think of these infill projects... they're both in older neighbourhoods. I can't tell if the heritage elements are tacky to visitors or not.

This one is in Georgestown. It has garages, which is rare for the neighbourhood.

...

I want to say it's OK for St.John's, but that's too patronizing. They are too simplistic, two-dimensional, too flat, totally featureless. If you take away the conventional windows and door, there are no real architectural features; the tacked on "playpen" steps don't blend into the architecture at all, and the entrances have no articulation or protection from the weather. Fail. The lack of landscaping and ugly asphalt looks like a place where you would throw garbage unapologetically. The colours are nice though. The single family is ok, also bland, with some odd and questionable features, but in a 1930s doctor's house sort of way.

esquire · #**105** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 1:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Curious what you guys think of these infill projects... they're both in older neighbourhoods. I can't tell if the heritage elements are tacky to visitors or not.

This one is in Georgestown. It has garages, which is rare for the neighbourhood.

Without knowing their context, I'd say that they look pretty tastefully done. The only thing I'm not crazy about are the steps/porches on the townhouses, which look very low-budget compared to the rest of the home which has fairly nice details.

HomeInMyShoes · #**106** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 2:10 PM**

If all of Canada's infill was as reasonably done as that I think we'd all be pretty happy. The wooden porches are terrible, but having lived in St.John's that is pretty much the only material I believe you are allowed to build that sort of thing with.

MonctonRad · #**107** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 2:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

The single family is ok, also bland, with some odd and questionable features, but in a 1930s doctor's house sort of way.

As a physician, I'm not sure what you mean about the "doctor's house" comment.

Are you implying "pretentious upper middle class???"

SignalHillHiker · #**108** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

As a physician, I'm not sure what you mean about the "doctor's house" comment.

Are you implying "pretentious upper middle class???"

Every town here has an historic "doctor's house" that's especially elaborate. Almost certainly tacky at the time but they generally look okay by today's standards.

Some have become businesses: www.doctorshousenewfoundland.com/the-inn/

*****

Overall seems like a lukewarm tolerance of those infill projects. That's good - I wasn't far off in my own feelings.

kwoldtimer · #**109** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 3:46 PM**

Never heard of a "doctor's house" before. All it makes me think of are the old houses that had the doctors/dentist's office incorporated/attached.

Some examples in DTK:

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.45244...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.45224...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.44701...7i13312!8i6656

MonkeyRonin · #**110** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 4:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Curious what you guys think of these infill projects... they're both in older neighbourhoods. I can't tell if the heritage elements are tacky to visitors or not.

They're definitely not good - they're too big and cumbersome for that style, and at that size need more articulation in the form. Plus the windows look undersized and their placement is weird (that the front door is unaligned with the randomly-arched window above really bothers me), and the porches are awful. Those ledgestone-clad sections between each house are an odd choice as well.

...However, when considered within their context they're not so bad. The materials and colours relate to those of their neighbours, and they're otherwise unobtrusive in any way. It's mediocre filler that will fade into the background and that's not a terrible thing.

Architype · #**111** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

As a physician, I'm not sure what you mean about the "doctor's house" comment.

Are you implying "pretentious upper middle class???"

Houses built by government near hospitals, they looked rather institutional. Also, houses built to accommodate doctor's offices, austere.

Gresto · #**112** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I don't understand the placement of the front doors at all. They should be set down at the ground level, not a half-storey up.

I hadn't noticed that.

It does look odd. I guess the entrance is a landing between the first and second story.

Architype · #**113** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 7:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gresto

I hadn't noticed that.

It does look odd. I guess the entrance is a landing between the first and second story.

The split entrances is a thing they've been doing in NL since the 70s, it's more rare elsewhere. In Vancouver the entrances would almost certainly be at ground level. Why would you want stairs on the outside when they could be inside?

SignalHillHiker · #**114** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

The split entrances is a thing they've been doing in NL since the 70s, it's more rare elsewhere. In Vancouver the entrances would almost certainly be at ground level. Why would you want stairs on the outside when they could be inside?

I didn't understand KW's response but was afraid to ask.

So it's not as common elsewhere? Excluding houses from the early 1900s and earlier, a significant percentage have that elevated split level thing. You walk inside to a landing with stairs doing down and up directly in front of you. Often the living room floor is at the same height as this landing, but to get there you go up stairs to the hallway/bedrooms/kitchen, and then down stairs from the dining room and hallway to the living room.

I think it's a cheap way to get high ceilings in the living room, and to not have to blast down as far to provide a basement.

Marty_Mcfly · #**115** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 9:11 PM**

Yeah I've never understood the split level entry love here, I really hate them. You essentially throw your front door on the staircase to the basement. Not very grand, is it?

Then to throw in the M. Night Shyamalan twist, in a lot of these split-entry homes, you never use the front door. Going in and out of the house? Through the back door by the kitchen. All the time, every time.

Architype · #**116** Posted **Oct 29, 2018, 10:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

Yeah I've never understood the split level entry love here, I really hate them. You essentially throw your front door on the staircase to the basement. Not very grand, is it?

Then to throw in the M. Night Shyamalan twist, in a lot of these split-entry homes, you never use the front door. Going in and out of the house? Through the back door by the kitchen. All the time, every time.

Except in a row house where you can't get to the back door.

Split entry only makes sense if it avoids having steps outside the house, because outside steps are more dangerous in winter or wet conditions.

kwoldtimer · #**117** Posted **Oct 30, 2018, 1:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Architype

The split entrances is a thing they've been doing in NL since the 70s, it's more rare elsewhere. In Vancouver the entrances would almost certainly be at ground level. Why would you want stairs on the outside when they could be inside?

I'm trying to imagine the vestibule with a half flight of steps up and a half flight down and, in my mind, it just wastes space by doubling the width taken up by staircases. I guess I'd need to see a floor plan to understand.

MTLskyline · #**118** Posted **Oct 30, 2018, 1:36 AM**

Plaza St-Hubert in Montreal... minus the canopy. To be fair a new canopy will replace the old one and the street will be redone... But I half wonder.. Do the canopies discourage property owners from renovating/redeveloping their buildings (when all anyone normally sees is the ground floor)?

IMG_6341 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr

IMG_6340 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr

IMG_6339 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr

IMG_6338 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr

IMG_6337 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr

IMG_6332 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr

IMG_6336 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr

IMG_6333 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr

IMG_6331 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr

IMG_6328 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr

IMG_6326 by Olivier Martineau, on Flickr