May 31, 2016

Daily Scot: Heritage destruction on Mole Hill?

Scot is not impressed:

mOLE hILL

Interesting that the Heritage Commission has approved the modern infill.  So the question is really whether modernism has any place in a late 19th-century streetscape.

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel Reply

  1. It depends on the quality of the design and execution.

    I’ve seen some stunningly successful Modernist additions and renovations to heritage houses on both the New Westminster and Vancouver heritage homes tours. In all cases the newer additions completely respected the heritage and faithfully restored the exteriors and interiors of the older structures while offering a respectful separation to the additions. Yet their treatments in materials and finishes couldn’t be more different. The new helped exemplify the old just by their juxtaposition.

    In one Strathcona case two 1890s working class houses on adjacent 25-foot lots became part of a strata, and the back yards were joined together behind the starkly modern but tastefully rendered additions added to the rear of the old timers. The Modernist treatment extended to the landscape, which was replete with generous terraced hard concrete patios separated by overflowing concrete planters and a water feature. A kid’s play area had a rubberized surface. There wasn’t one blade of Edwardian grass left … and it was totally apropos. That project saw an overall increase in housing that included new basement suites, renovated main houses, and a large apartment over conjoined garages on the lane.

    There are too many bad violations of heritage with what I refer to as the suburbanization of Edwardian streetscapes and interiors with efforts that are clearly amateur, and it makes the creativity and genius of the successes stand out more.

    Architecture isn’t just about style. It’s about scale, proportion, fit, originality and utility. And blanket rules about style should not apply everywhere, though in many cases they are justified.

  2. For clarification, the image is of the laneway, so the modern infill would be behind the restored 1902 house on the site, which is what you’ll see on the street.

    The reference to the demolition of 1180 Comox doesn’t mention that it’s not a heritage property, and unlike most of Mole Hill only dates from the 1950s. The replacement that’s proposed is also modern in style, but the scale is in line with the surrounding homes. (see https://changingcitybook.com/2016/04/15/1180-comox-street/)

  3. The laneway at Mole Hill was restored as an expansive heritage landscape and ought to be be respected as much as the streetfronts on Pendrell or Comox St.

    Thanks for the link, but it’s hard to assess whether it’s appropriate or not when it’s hidden behind a tree and only includes a tiny glimpse of one of the 30+ Victorian and Edwardian houses it is joining on the block. The rendering from the rear demonstrates more obviously that is rather ugly and dominating, not to mention blocking views of the Strathmore Lodge – itself over 100 years old. Rear image is here: http://www.mole-hill.ca/blog/vancouvers-famous-heritage-block-to-change-forever/

  4. This is the little green house circa 1950. It’s certainly not worth saving and has very little heritage value. I’m okay with a contemporary replacement so long as it fits within the overall form of the surrounding neighborhood. I don’t think it necessarily needs to be of the heritage character; however I would add that the boxy form is questionable, and should respect the vernacular of the neighborhood. I’m surprised there are not a clear set of urban design guidelines for Mole Hill?!

  5. Problem is, the image on the poster is a rejected design. The approved one is identifiably modern but much more sympathetic to the neighborhood. I would attach it but am at the wrong end of the country.

    1. I wonder if you could channel the great Arthur Erickson. What structures would he put up to house people. Wouldn’t it be like Robson Square.

      I was fascinated to read how he put up a non-compliant high fence around his property along with a massive berm to provide privacy. Architects/planners talk so much about community engagement and friendly porches. That doesn’t appeal to a lot of us.

      One of the greatest luxuries in a city is private green space. One of the only times that many have the simulacrum of private space is when they’re in their car cocoons – which is why it’s so hard to get them to pupate – to evolve into a saner form of locomotion.

      1. I’m not sure how the revised design is any more fitting for the block. I think it is actually larger and more dominating & is only setback 2 feet from the laneway. Remember Mole Hill is unique in the city because the laneway was designed to be an expansive & parklike ringed by restored heritage houses. It would be better if it observed the established low massing adjacent to the laneway and was designed and coloured to be in keeping with the surrounding houses.

  6. Thanks for that, but I’m thinking more along the lines of an Ericksonian Usonia (that’s melifluous) rather than what is the Baldwin equivalent of Fallingwater. Yes it’s more modest, but it’s still a SFH in a unique setting.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles