194 replies to this topic

[skeptic]

I can't help but wonder if posting a photo of someone's house on Facebook and publicly protesting it while encouraging others to do the same is encroaching on some harassment laws.

It hasn't happened. The houses picture are all under construction by spec developers.

[G-Man]

^ I could be wrong but I am fairly certain that Gumgum was referring to the people that would live in them not the people building them.

[arfenarf]

Pffft.

I posted only, "Actually, I rather like that house" on a photo they posted - the comment has been disappeared. How very democratic of them.

[aastra]

One way or another somebody will be living in the new houses. So do the people who live in the new houses care about the community or don't they? If they do care about the community, then how do we reconcile their desire to live in the new houses with their concern for the community? Are the new houses a menace to the community or aren't they?

[Baro]

The house is a menace that's destroying the community, until the neighbours move on or get used to it. Then when a new pod-people house is built in the area the residents of these new houses will protest them. "Our neighbourhood has NO pod-people style houses. Oak bay will be destroyed if we end up replacing all our traditional homes with pod homes!!" a few pod homes will be built and then society will move onto the next style. 100 years later residents of faux-tudor, west coast modern, and pod-people style will band together to protest some other new style that totally ruins the very uniform 1900-2200 era homes they have. "our neighbourhood is made up of lovely homes built between 1900 and 2200, but these 24th century houses just stick out!!"

It will repeat over and over with no one learning.

[aastra]

This is the question that I was trying to raise earlier. How many repeat examples of a particular style does it take to ruin a neighbourhood? I thought it would trigger a lot of discussion but it didn't.

[Mike K.]

No, I'm saying the protests are directed at developers who are in the process of building these houses. They frankly don't give a **** about the community they are building in and that is the problem.

Some are being built by developers, some are not.

Developers tend to build what the general market wants -- they don't build spec homes for a niche market.

[Baro]

I'm sure that answer will vary. Some people like a neighbourhood to be built out of nothing but a single style, some people like a mix that reflects the entire history of the neighbourhood. Some people see a mixed neighbourhood and like it, see the mix as a single style because they're architecturally ignorant, then flip out when anything new comes along not understanding that the area they like has been doing this non-stop since it was founded.

[Bingo]

I wonder if this topic is more about some degree of heritage than it is about bylaws,designs, and the environment. Everyone seems to view heritage differently in Victoria.

[aastra]

Some people see a mixed neighbourhood and like it, see the mix as a single style...

That's a really good point. They want to preserve the current mix, which they regard as a unified and complete whole. It's understandable to want to preserve something that you like. But it's also absurd because the mixing is still going on. It's not as if the mixing paused at this perfect moment, and now it's threatening to start up again. The mixing is always still going on. How can you preserve a moment in time? You can't.

The same thing happens downtown. Every new building somehow represents a threat to the current mix, even though the current mix was developed over ~150 years and contains an enormous amount of variation. Big bites were even taken out of it here and there. In some places the bites were filled back in with other stuff, and in some places the bites were left open. The evolutionary process continued year over year and decade over decade. And yet somehow a single new building proposed in one corner of downtown represents a threat to the mix as it currently stands. As if the mix as it currently stands was the end goal of all of that endless reconfiguring. In fact, there never was an end goal.

[PulpVictor]

That's a really good point. They want to preserve the current mix, which they regard as a unified and complete whole. It's understandable to want to preserve something that you like. But it's also absurd because the mixing is still going on. It's not as if the mixing paused at this perfect moment, and now it's threatening to start up again. The mixing is always still going on. How can you preserve a moment in time? You can't.

The same thing happens downtown. Every new building somehow represents a threat to the current mix, even though the current mix was developed over ~150 years and contains an enormous amount of variation. Big bites were even taken out of it here and there. In some places the bites were filled back in with other stuff, and in some places the bites were left open. The evolutionary process continued year over year and decade over decade. And yet somehow a single new building proposed in one corner of downtown represents a threat to the mix as it currently stands. As if the mix as it currently stands was the end goal of all of that endless reconfiguring. In fact, there never was an end goal.

Excellent point. There is no homogenous 'style' anywhere in Victoria. It would be quite different if we were in a town that was 800+ years old. What the railing is really about is that this sort of mock-up of Merry Olde England that is Oak Bay, just another instance of wannabeism, is how these Brits want it to stay. It isn't England.

[aastra]

Everyone seems to view heritage differently in Victoria.

I think that's right.

Some people would consider the styles that are already represented and thus conclude that the introduction of any new style constitutes a violation of the area's heritage. That new style was never here before, therefore it doesn't belong here now.

Some other people would consider the styles that are already represented and note the wide variation and thus conclude that the ongoing introduction of new styles is consistent with the area's heritage. New styles have always belonged here and they still belong here now.

[aastra]

Posted by me back in June, 2012:

 

 

...people worry about the possibility that modern box homes might end up being a prevailing/defining form in the not-too-distant future? As diverse as Oak Bay's housing stock is, these modern box homes may end up being overrepresented? One such house per every couple of blocks would be fine, but two or three such houses per every block would be terrible?

 

Here we are in the summer of 2016 and I think this is a genuine issue now. There are places in Oak Bay and Saanich where very similar new houses are beside each other or facing each other and the effect is that you're looking at a housing project. Very similar lines and a lot of brown and grey. The individual houses look fine unto themselves, but bunched together in close proximity I think the combined effect is really not good. They need to start mixing things up by using different colours and materials, introducing some curves among those straight lines, etc.

[Rob Randall]

Agreed. We are in the midst of what I consider the most dreary, unimaginative, regressive period in modern residential architectural history. The Lowest Common Denominator era. Arts & Crafts Lite. Beige-O-Rama.

[Nparker]

e

Agreed. We are in the midst of what I consider the most dreary, unimaginative, regressive period in modern residential architectural history...

Have you forgotten the coral-pink-beige stucco boxes of the late 1980s and early 1990s. These were hideous then and have not improved with age.

[Rob Randall]

 

Have you forgotten the coral-pink-beige stucco boxes of the late 1980s and early 1990s. These were hideous then and have not improved with age.

 

I was thinking more about houses. But those condos are hideous, with their faded, moss-tinged dirty pale peachy-salmon colouring. But there are few left today, most have been reclad with something more palatable. I don't think there will be any in ten years. 

[rjag]

^ yup, Gordonhead specials.... faux Mediterranean split levels with rounded arches....I cringe every time I see one.

 

Gotta say, I'm not a fan of these flat roofed eco-friendly boxes going up in the last few years either 

[todd]

It's kind of pathetic most of the time when people build so-called modern(different) homes obviously incredibly out of character with the neighborhood it's more of a "  oh look at me give me attention" very self-serving.

Edited by todd, 18 July 2016 - 10:09 AM.

[VicHockeyFan]

I like it when a house shakes up the neighbourhood a bit.

 

I've pointed to this house before.  Different, in the middle of plain.

 

 

 

 

[todd]

Anything stopping someone from building a protest house? I always thought an erect penis house would cause a stir.

Edited by todd, 18 July 2016 - 10:27 AM.