Densification: who likes it?
Apropos a sort of low-key ongoing grumbly debate about densification in comments here, some Montreal West people are fighting plans to demolish a single house with a “very large footprint”, subdivide the lot and put 3 houses up. Three houses! Words like horrified, outraged and appalling are thrown around here.
Jack 10:19 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
“My immediate reaction was to be horrified and outraged with the idea that they would demolish a lovely home, and then when I found out the intention was to subdivide the large, treed lot into three and build three new homes, that was even more appalling,” said Margaret Griffin….apocalypse Montreal West.
Kate 11:49 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
Jack, is this all about property values on adjoining lots?
Blork 16:46 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
Well let’s see. On the one hand you have a charming 100-year-old house of a style not all that common in Montreal (craftsman) sitting on a lot that is described as large but really isn’t all that big (see overhead view here: https://goo.gl/maps/19DEUnHdBeSMPyqo6) in a neighbourhood filled with charming older houses in a borough that is known for its greenery and open spaces. On the other hand you will have three cookie-cutter houses crammed cheek-by-jowl onto a lot where they barely fit, contributing to the overall blanding and IKEAification of the neighbourhood, but oh, densification.
I’d be against it too.
(For those who want the demo to happen in the name of densification, I assume you are also champions of the demolition of the Van Horne Mansion, and I assume you’re sad that they re-built the Lafontaine house on Overdale when they could have squeezed in another Airbnb tower on that spot…)
Faiz imam 17:01 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
“On the other hand you will have three cookie-cutter houses crammed cheek-by-jowl onto a lot where they barely fit, ”
See, this here is the problem.
There are absolutely architectural styles that would fit 3 units perfectly well in that space, but the fear that they will be “crammed” is what is scaring people unnecessarily. There are in fact many types of triplexes where you’d be hardpressed to notice that its not a “regular” house.
We have to allow that sort of creative reuse to occur, and to densify very low density suburbs in ways that are healthy and fit the surrounding environment.
Blork 17:17 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
There’s something to be said about preserving the look and aesthetics of existing neighbourhoods. It would be one thing if this were a vacant lot, or if the house in question was a junkpile that no one would miss. But that’s not the case here. It’s a nice looking house on a corner lot. Possibly one of the oldest houses in the neighbourhood. Maybe the existing house could be split into a duplex instead of tearing it down.
I think of the horrors that took place in the 1960s and 70s when older buildings were knocked down willy-nilly to be replaced by ugly (often brutalist) monstrosities, because nobody cared about heritage then; people were only concerned with progress! and the future!
We now look back on those times with horror, and wonder “WTF were they thinking?” Well now I see the same thing happening, but now the catch-word is “densification!”
(And FWIW, I’m not against densification; I’m in favor of it. But it’s not a panacea; there are places were that’s the right approach and places where it’s not.)
Blork 17:22 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
And FWIW, I doubt this place is a junk pile. Streetview from less than six months ago shows it for sale by Sotheby’s; hardly the realator for the tear-down set.
Blork 17:28 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
Listed at $1,149,000.; a gorgeous craftsman house. It is insane that anyone wants to tear this down.
https://sothebysrealty.ca/en/property/quebec/montreal-real-estate/montreal-ouest/437985/
Kate 18:48 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
To be fair, Blork, it’s not a given that the house would be replaced by something ugly or even cookie-cutter. And as you say, there’s not really room for three McMansions on that lot.
I mostly found the vocabulary a little extreme.
(Hate the interior decor in the Sotheby’s ad – that heavy swaggy faux-retro look is prevalent, but awful. At least there isn’t a pseudo-Victorian breakfast bar.)
CE 19:49 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
I’m generally not in favour of tearing down historic houses but this one I wouldn’t shed any tears over. The lot is a great corner lot that could accommodate more people. There isn’t much room left on the island to build on and this house seems to be hogging a lot of space. If you look around the immediate area in the neighbourhood, you can see quite a few examples of lots the same size that comfortably fit three or more houses.
Also, I don’t think there is much architectural value here. Sure, it’s not a common style in Montreal but there are literally hundreds of thousands of houses like this around Canada and the US (many of which are much nicer than this one). Also, if you look carefully, this house is in rough shape and would need a fair bit of work to make it nice enough for someone willing to pay $12,320 just in property tax every year.
I say tear it down.
Blork 20:08 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
I’m not crazy about the decor either, but the design, as an example of early 20th Century Craftsman, is outstanding. The overall space, the window casings and placement, the ceilings, some original cabinetry in the kitchen, other original woodwork throughout the house, etc. If this house were in the American mid-west or California, people would be falling over each other to preserve it. (I’ve made a bit of a study of this style over the past few years, visiting a number of historic examples and doing a lot of reading about it — although I don’t claim to be an expert — and this is a really nice example.)
And what kind of economics has one buying a million dollar house as a tear down? (Outside of Toronto or Vancouver I mean.) When you factor in the demo costs, that’s around $400,000 per unit just for the property. Then you plunk down a few $300,000 Bonneville houses and sell them for what, $900,000 each? Is that the solution to Montreal’s alleged density problem?
@CE, there is plenty of room on the island for new development, and any development in those areas should be done with density as a top priority. But if you ask me, tear-downs and their redevelopment needs to be done with respect for the surrounding environment. Reference my notes above about the horrors of so-called “progress!” building in the 1960s. Just because you don’t like the Craftsman style, and probably don’t give AF what the people in the neighbourhood think, that doesn’t mean tearing it down is the right thing to do.
mare 22:46 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
I know in Ottawa there were (are) a lot of tear downs because of grow houses. It apparently is a bylaw that if your house is used for growing canabis, even by tennants, it has to be demolished. I don’t think we have a bylaw like that here. Anyway, there were a few near my father-in-law’s house and it made for some pretty nice empty lots that unfortunately now are all occupied by macmansions with three car garages. But it could have been multiplexes, they are allowed by the zoning laws, my father-in-law planned converting his house into one to generate a revenu income for his much younger wife.
Douglas 23:40 on 2019-12-08 Permalink
Didn’t know the Van Horne Sherbrooke mansion was literally sitting on Easton avenue, a road nobody in Montreal had even heard of.
Should never allow Montrealers to ever tear down any old building. Should allow these old buildings to rot forever. New development and new housing is a plague and horror we will never recover from.
Blork 09:21 on 2019-12-09 Permalink
Future internet historians will cite Douglas’s reply as an example of a pointless comment by someone who either hasn’t read the discussion or is incapable of understanding it.
walkerp 10:28 on 2019-12-09 Permalink
I’m fully with Blork on this one. There is also an environmental aspect which is that most likely the materials will simply be demolished and taken to the trash, where the wood will be burned (releasing carbon) and the rest sit in a landfill. And whatever replaces it will be built as cheaply as possible, will look like shit and will probably last about one-fifth as long as the existing house. Finally, the new place will fill as much land as possible with housing and garages, thus further increasing the heat footprint.
And frankly, that house is gorgeous. Look at that wainscotting. You can subdivide the place without tearing it down (but that would impact the bottom line).
Filp 14:41 on 2019-12-09 Permalink
I really think the comparison between this and progress building of the 60’s is extremely exaggerated. The 60’s would have razed the whole neighborhood and built a horrific towers in the park development that would eventually become the vertical poverty traps of tomorrow. This little house being being built into 3 little houses is really not the kind of densification that destroys the character of the neighborhood. Also what year does a house have to be for heritage Montreal to make a statement on the issue? I doubt this one qualifies as significant in a historical or architecture sort of way, but I suppose anything is historically significant if it reflects the style of the time.
The assumption that whatever comes now being built cheaply is exactly that – an assumption. And that sort of rhetoric is used by neighborhood associations to scare the shit out of, and mobilize citizens to prevent development. This happens all over north america. You can have densification while respecting the local architecture and neighborhood character. It’s obviously harder here since this isn’t exactly the plateau levels of density, but you really have to see the architecture before making judgements like that. Because if we judge that all new houses and shite quality and an eyesore, where am I supposed to live when I have to buy one? Blainville? Id obviously love to be able to buy a Nice stone clad plex in Villeray, but who knows how much those are going to go for
Blork 16:31 on 2019-12-09 Permalink
Do not lose sight of the fact that this is entirely developer-driven. It is not being done for the good of the community or because of some utopian density ideals. It’s being done to turn a buck. So when you start with a million dollar house as a tear-down, then you’re already into some big bucks. The profit has to come from somewhere, so these will either be very expensive mini-mini-McMansions, or somewhat expensive cookie-cutter houses. Those are not unreasonable assumptions.
“Because if we judge that all new houses and shite quality and an eyesore…” I’m not doing that. I’m saying THESE new houses will likely be middle-of-the-road quality and forgettable to look at, and it’s a shame that the developers want to tear down a perfectly good and somewhat historically interesting MILLION DOLLAR HOUSE to do that.
Miko 03:51 on 2019-12-10 Permalink
the existing house is in a very bad shape, and doesn’t even fit withing the houses in the same street. and the lot is 15500 square foot. this will make three large lots over 5000 sf each, which bigger than the majority of the lots in Montreal West. An old charm designed house designed by a good architect will make three beautiful new houses.
Lora 23:18 on 2019-12-10 Permalink
That particular section of Montreal West is unique in its variety of older homes of assorted styles and lots of beautiful trees. The house in question is a heritage house. The large expanse of land has some very old trees that would have to be cut down to make room for three new houses. The new houses, even if well designed, would not fit in with the rest of the houses on the street or the area. This is a question of respect, of preservation of the past. And would the demolition set a precedent to demolish others and do the same?
The charm of this neighborhood is the airiness, the space, something to be cherished. It’s a shame to add to visual clutter. All we see today are developers making use of every inch of space for maximum profit at the expense of character and appreciation of the past.