[Admiral Beez]

... self-centred SFH dwellers who think their purchase of a land parcel comes with unlimited power to dictate others’ unlimited privacy...

That‘s exactly how I imagine the SFH maxi box developers and owners feel. “It’s my property, and as the owner I’m entitled to unlimited power to dictate others’ privacy. If you don’t like my box, close your curtains.”

I live a different life in Cabbagetown, where new builds and renos go through approvals by the heritage board, but I appreciate it‘s not for everyone. The CT heritage association was founded in the 1970s exactly due to developers tearing down old historic homes and putting up their contemporary box homes, in those days the brutalist, concrete slabs with tiny windows. You can still see them today, though several were themselves torn down and replaced with homes the association deemed appropriate. Again, some will see these as draconian interference with property rights. But I am so very glad we don‘t see the worst offenders in the maxi box house craze here.

 

[adma]

That‘s exactly how I imagine the SFH maxi box developers and owners feel. “It’s my property, and as the owner I’m entitled to unlimited power to dictate others’ privacy. If you don’t like my box, close your curtains.”

I live a different life in Cabbagetown, where new builds and renos go through approvals by the heritage board, but I appreciate it‘s not for everyone. The CT heritage association was founded in the 1970s exactly due to developers tearing down old historic homes and putting up their contemporary box homes, in those days the brutalist, concrete slabs with tiny windows. You can still see them today, though several were themselves torn down and replaced with homes the association deemed appropriate. Again, some will see these as draconian interference with property rights. But I am so very glad we don‘t see the worst offenders in the maxi box house craze here.

Actually, the "brutalist, concrete slabs" they were fighting weren't "contemporary box homes", but urban-renewal land-assembly teardowns on behalf of multiple housing a la Regent Park or St James Town. Or if there was anything actually happening locally they were combatting, it was the kinds of brutal sandblast-and-gut renovations that were the barrel-bottom of 70s gentrification.

Really; "contemporary box houses" were few and far between in the 70s, at least of the sort implied in this thread--unless one is thinking of the "Toronto Special", which is a far more vernacular typology; and relative to Cabbagetown's 70s gentrification, the Toronto Special is more of a piece with the iron-railing and gaudy-Mediterranean-paint-job renovations that were common in the more "diverse" and less-ungentrified older neighbourhoods at this point. (Yes, there's an unspoken racial/cultural undercurrent here.)

 

[W. K. Lis]

Many changes have been made to homes over the years. The old Victorian houses, for example, didn't have electricity in them, and only coal burning furnaces. Maybe no insulation, whatever that was (newspapers were used sometimes). As new homes were built, they were built for the new home improvements. Housing standard were changed, sometimes even reversed (used to be that asbestos HAD to be used, now that's reversed) 60 amp electricity was normal by the 1950's, today it's 200 amp. Telephone wiring has been upgraded to fibre optics. And the designs upgrade to match.

In the 1950's, it was normal to see a forest of TV antennas on each and every roof. Now its underground cables or satellite dishes. The old single-pane wooden windows have been replaced by double or even triple glasses fibreglass windows. And the designs of the homes have changed to keep up.

From link.

 

[Lenser]

Well said, Kenojuak.

 

[TheKingEast]

I think all properties should respect their surroundings and the neighbourhood, but I love seeing different style houses in a neighbourhood and that includes the odd modern, boxy one in an area full of victorians. Breaks things up. Needs to be done well, though. I hate seeing cheapy, cheapy modern houses and there are many of them.

 

[slickpete83]

style is one thing , but the crappy materials they use to build these homes is terrible , take a hammer and you could put a hole in the stucco wall

 

[adma]

The thing is, if the 70s were like the present when it came to the threat of self-consciously stylish "boxy houses", the streets of Cabbagetown and other gentrifying locales would have been threatened by clones of this.

But the more common "boxy house" threat was this.

Or else, the dreaded threat in Cabbagetown-type neighbourhoods was from simplistic faux bay-n-gables affairs, often in the form of town houses--the 70s version of post-Y2K overloaded "Richard Wengles"...

 

[Towered]

I think a lot of those modern boxy houses are actually very well done. I've certainly seen a lot more good ones than bad ones. Besides, those squat little 50's, cottagey bungalows are utter crap anyway. I wouldn't mind seeing them all disappear.

The real threat are all the faux historic style houses being built, not the modernist ones.

 

[gabe]

When it comes to this: actually, the example on the right is a growing trend, and a reaction to the example on the left--not *entirely* unlike how, in condo architecture, overdecorated PoMo made way for aA-style glass boxes and the like over the past decade and a half.

Though it's a bit of a loaded matter, since examples like on the right take more "effort" to come by and can be pointed to as exemplars of the hubris of gentrification--and of course, those who dare to criticize being knocked as hidebound reactionaries, etc. So the one on the left and the one on the right are, ultimately, "low" and "high" reflections of the same impulse, as if leaving well enough alone will not do anymore.

And as a broader trend (maybe not applicable in *this* particular case)...

Millennials are ditching the cookie-cutter McMansion for the 'McModern'

McMansions have long dominated American suburbs. But a new crop of homes influenced by modernist architecture, called 'McModerns,' are replacing them.

www.businessinsider.com

I have noticed a lot more these "mcmoderns" are being build in the Hill crescent area in Scarborough, i worked some homes on that street last summer. i was surprised how nice of an area it is.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

43 Bethune Blvd · 43 Bethune Blvd, Toronto, ON M1M 3B9, Canada

Building

www.google.com

Homes for sale near Bethune and Hill Cres

The source for Toronto Real Estate - We currently have 10 homes for sale in Toronto ranging in price $749,900 to $4,888,000.

byjesseandjoe.com

 

[SunriseChampion]

So, this is the industry I work in....custom residential.

There are very, very many of these built using shit materials and shit workmanship. There is also a pervasiveness of shit design. Architects love to take credit for the work of others but seldom the blame for the utter nonsense they so "creatively" conjured. A lack of practical experience is very common and very detrimental. I wish they would finally learn this. No one cares, they're the fluffy "stars" of the industry....even though us, the real workers are oftentimes redesigning whole systems....never mind the actual details of our work which are quite often designed by us from scratch, but oh yeah, look at the final product! The architect did a fine job of paying attention to detail.

Anyway, just a pet peeve of mine. All the articles on these places never mention the people who did the actual work. It's always the architect and head builder. Fine, but it's the equivalent of people who eat meat and don't want to know where their chicken came from and how it got onto their plate....you know, the fun bits.

A lot of architects in this field are great people and do very good work.
Just like the builders: there are great ones and there are terrible ones. Best of luck finding the great ones. Any landlord not doing their research by visiting previous projects and talkingto other clients is failing hard.

The rectilinear home has been the trend for well over a decade now and it shows no sign of slowing, at least from the plans I'm seeing, some of which, don't forget, are as much as 3-4 years from completion.

One of the crazy things, as I see it, is the attention paid to interior detail and materials with some of these at the expense of the exterior. This strikes me as particularly foolish as is a home's primary function not shelter?

One place I should say that this sort of design fits very well is in more densely built-up areas as infill projects because they tend to make better use of the space and can accomodate multi-family configurations more efficiently.

 

[Northern Light]

So, this is the industry I work in....custom residential.

There are very, very many of these built using shit materials and shit workmanship. There is also a pervasiveness of shit design. Architects love to take credit for the work of others but seldom the blame for the utter nonsense they so "creatively" conjured. A lack of practical experience is very common and very detrimental. I wish they would finally learn this. No one cares, they're the fluffy "stars" of the industry....even though us, the real workers are oftentimes redesigning whole systems....never mind the actual details of our work which are quite often designed by us from scratch, but oh yeah, look at the final product! The architect did a fine job of paying attention to detail.

Anyway, just a pet peeve of mine. All the articles on these places never mention the people who did the actual work. It's always the architect and head builder. Fine, but it's the equivalent of people who eat meat and don't want to know where their chicken came from and how it got onto their plate....you know, the fun bits.

A lot of architects in this field are great people and do very good work.
Just like the builders: there are great ones and there are terrible ones. Best of luck finding the great ones. Any landlord not doing their research by visiting previous projects and talkingto other clients is failing hard.

The rectilinear home has been the trend for well over a decade now and it shows no sign of slowing, at least from the plans I'm seeing, some of which, don't forget, are as much as 3-4 years from completion.

One of the crazy things, as I see it, is the attention paid to interior detail and materials with some of these at the expense of the exterior. This strikes me as particularly foolish as is a home's primary function not shelter?

One place I should say that this sort of design fits very well is in more densely built-up areas as infill projects because they tend to make better use of the space and can accomodate multi-family configurations more efficiently.

I've often thought that on a new building, any new building, there should be a spot for an in-laid plaque with every single person's name and job title who worked on it; like movie credits.

That list should have to be registered online, so everyone knows for all-time who did the architecture, the engineering, the interior design, the electrical, the roofing, the foundation, the plumbing, the drywall, the carpentry, the tile, the kitchen etc.

A way to inspire pride and fear shame. Employer names should also be listed!

 

[SunriseChampion]

I've often thought that on a new building, any new building, there should be a spot for an in-laid plaque with every single person's name and job title who worked on it; like movie credits.

That list should have to be registered online, so everyone knows for all-time who did the architecture, the engineering, the interior design, the electrical, the roofing, the foundation, the plumbing, the drywall, the carpentry, the tile, the kitchen etc.

A way to inspire pride and fear shame. Employer names should also be listed!

This is the best thing I've read anywhere on the internet this month. Thanks for coming out!

Also, don't worry, I write our names all over these things. As well as stamp our names in metal product and apply stickers with our name on it. Secret hidden stuff for future....demolition. ?

The thing is that half of what we work on has a lifespan of maybe 50 years, in terms of material lifetime and the other half is closer to 200+ years so it's a toss up with the names being hidden.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So, this is the industry I work in....custom residential.

There are very, very many of these built using shit materials and shit workmanship. There is also a pervasiveness of shit design. Architects love to take credit for the work of others but seldom the blame for the utter nonsense they so "creatively" conjured. A lack of practical experience is very common and very detrimental. I wish they would finally learn this. No one cares, they're the fluffy "stars" of the industry....even though us, the real workers are oftentimes redesigning whole systems....never mind the actual details of our work which are quite often designed by us from scratch, but oh yeah, look at the final product! The architect did a fine job of paying attention to detail.

Anyway, just a pet peeve of mine. All the articles on these places never mention the people who did the actual work. It's always the architect and head builder. Fine, but it's the equivalent of people who eat meat and don't want to know where their chicken came from and how it got onto their plate....you know, the fun bits.

A lot of architects in this field are great people and do very good work.
Just like the builders: there are great ones and there are terrible ones. Best of luck finding the great ones. Any landlord not doing their research by visiting previous projects and talkingto other clients is failing hard.

The rectilinear home has been the trend for well over a decade now and it shows no sign of slowing, at least from the plans I'm seeing, some of which, don't forget, are as much as 3-4 years from completion.

One of the crazy things, as I see it, is the attention paid to interior detail and materials with some of these at the expense of the exterior. This strikes me as particularly foolish as is a home's primary function not shelter?

One place I should say that this sort of design fits very well is in more densely built-up areas as infill projects because they tend to make better use of the space and can accomodate multi-family configurations more efficiently.

I’m 22 years and going in the same house, but few seem to stay in a house for more than ten years anymore; so shoddy design, materials and construction don't really matter as long as you can sell the house onto someone else before it fails. I also sense that many of these rectilinear and infill homes are property flips, where the builder-owner have zero interest in the longevity of the house as long as it superficially presents well and stays sound until legal liability is exhausted.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Depends upon for whom those original houses were built for.

Working class folks?

From link.

Or the rich folks. Like the Ontario Lieutenant Governor's home (until 1960).

From link.

Most people tend to try to "imitate" the rich, using "polyester" instead of "silk", in their building materials.

 

[Towered]

I’m 22 years and going in the same house, but few seem to stay in a house for more than ten years anymore; so shoddy design, materials and construction don't really matter as long as you can sell the house onto someone else before it fails. I also sense that many of these rectilinear and infill homes are property flips, where the builder-owner have zero interest in the longevity of the house as long as it superficially presents well and stays sound until legal liability is exhausted.

Which exactly proves Sunrise Champions' point that here our emphasis is on disposability in the name of selfish gain - "I got mine, so eff everyone else."