Saturday, June 09, 2007

curb appall

Sometimes I really wonder. Who designs this appalling junk?

I have watched this place go up over the last few months. The original house was small, and sold for about 529K - if memory serves. When they dug and poured the foundation, I wondered what the hell they were thinking of, as the new footprint seemed smaller than the original. Then it went up to three stories, and I thought that it might be interesting.

But look what they did to it! "The eyebrows" are mighty incongruous, and the doorways look as if they have range hoods above them. The fan coming out of the wall on the front of the house is a nice design feature. They missed out on the south-facing windows in the aerie, but made up for it with a windowless door, and a microscopic "widow's walk". The awning over that door would have been a better fit than the "eyebrows".

On the positive side, the view from the penthouse will be very nice, and the area is "improving" with all manner of modern monstrousities (as can be seen in the background).

I didn't bother researching the wish price, but I would wager that the place cost 300k to build, plus roughly 500k for the lot, plus financing, taxes, GST, PTT, commissions, etc.

What I would really like to know, is where the designer/architect got their training, and whether they have a severe drinking problem. I would be embarrassed to have my name on that wreck. What a mish-mash. It's like New England meets Arte Deco and crashes headlong into Vancouver City Hall.


Anonymous said...

Good grief.

What a waste of building materials. There ought to be mandatory psychological tests run on architects.

Biggest eyesore in the neighbourhood, I'll bet; and there's probably some pretty stiff competition.

solipsist said...

Well said anon.

Anonymous said...

Whenever I see an ugly 60s house I am always shocked that homes like that were actually built back then. Victoria is full of them. People trying to make a buck. The 60s were prosperous times.

I guess 40 years from now people will be looking at all the homes built in the 2000 years and say the same thing.

Very sad.

Anonymous said...

Thanks anon, I also detest the Victoria 1960s houses. Not only damned ugly, but most have mould.

All this nonsense about "charm" is a load of BS. That was undoubtedly the worst era for architecture.

We rented one of these 60s houses. It is the most stupidly laid-out house. Unnecessarily large living room, crappy original kitchen and bath, small and crampy master bedroom, etc, etc.

I hated bringing in groceries, all the way up the drive, then tons of stairs, then across the "formal" dining room into the ugly kitchen. the cupboards are the most uncomfortable to access, being a rounded shape with deep interiors, but narrow doors. I got a crook in my neck from reaching in for cereal! WOE is me

jesse said...

I assume they have indoor plumbing and are not relying on the outhouse.

solipsist said...

"I assume they have indoor plumbing and are not relying on the outhouse."

It's getting harder to say these days. I see them everywhere, and think that they may be a new thing in housing in Vancouver. Something about luxury and exclusiveness.

It makes me laugh to see people pull over their cars to implement them. It's a public service, if nothing else.

Anonymous said...

Don't be dissin' the architects!
It is very unlikely that a licensed architect was involved in the design of that home. Provincial law generally allows non-architects to design single-family homes (ref:Architects Act of BC Sections 27 and 60), and since architects are usually perceived as being "too expensive," the vast majority of house designs are pumped out by plan-book publishers, CAD technicians, untrained designers, developers, contractors... anyone who thinks they know what they like, or what they can sell.

Babybull40 said...

Goodness I think I saw a portable eau de toilet there...That appears to not have changed one iota..

Streel said...

I thought someone told me that satv designed that house :)

solipsist said...

"anyone who thinks they know what they like, or what they can sell."

That's what is so sad.

I meant not to disparage architects in general (though there are abundant hideous examples of their visions).

You are absolutely right though, it comes down to the client in the end. It's hard (and unwelcome) to legislate aesthetic. Mandatory art and music in the curriculum might help though - along with some geometry.

There are a lot of indiscriminate constructions during all epochs. I wonder though, that the original Vancouver Special actually holds up to the new McVicarage, and is actually preferable.

satv - did you? I don't think satv comes here, so we may never know.

Anonymous said...

I really hate the style of this house and many others with similar style. May god make that reno/builder company bankrupt!

paul said...

Simply revolting! It is very hard to believe that someone will actually pay dearly for the privledge to live in this piece of S--T. It is even harder to believe that this house may actually be the "best" looking one in the neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

I know this house. Down the road there's a bright orange monster, and at the corner of Rupert & 19th there's a bright baby blue one that is almost finished. At least they chose a decent colour...

solipsist said...

"Down the road there's a bright orange monster"

I have been intending to feature that mandarin monstrousity, but my batteries where dead when last I passed by it. It's...lovely...and big.