I think the most important thing when modifying a facade in a developed neighborhood is to harmonize, and to NOT undermine the existing aesthetic.

The example above is a radical departure from the existing architecture, but it doesn't bother me because care was obviously taken to use quality materials and good design. The color of the door works with the neighbor's brick. The colors of the facade are reflected in the neighbor's trim colors. They didn't use vinyl siding or some other material at odds with the (and cheaper than) existing look. They didn't incorporate neon colors or amateurish or kitsch details. It works.

It's fine to respect historic things, but we live NOW, and the world changes. I, personally, am not interested in living in a museum. I WOULD like the world to look as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Finding the right balance is what excellence in design is for.

In established neighborhoods, there has to be a planning committee to ensure that the character and scale of the neighborhood is preserved. I really hate to see houses built or added on that are 2-3 times larger than existing homes and go right to the property line. Cheap materials and bad design bring down the property values. I agree with Sherrybinnh, the above example is not obtrusive and looks like a thoughtful response to the existing styles. It harmonizes.

The Big Orange Splot -this is an absolute must read.

Westboro/Island park has very little to none historical significance, so I can see why there wouldn't be any (or very few) rules regulating new construction. In Europe, where the history is much richer, I can really appreciate fighting for the "old charm".

PS, not that I'm a fan of McMansions, on the contrary. But a well appointed modern home in Westboro/Island park (even if it sticks out) is a pleasant signt :)

@Thelionsdenstudio, that story is the first thing I thought of as well! Incidentally, I read it to my daughter just the other day. "My home is me and I am it. It is the place I like to be and it looks like all my dreams."
I totally agree with Sherrybinh as well.

Depends...in Nantucket town nothing happens to any house or building without all kinds of review.

If you are into this kind of subject, the minutes of the Historic District Commission make fascinating reading.

Hi everyone, Eleanor here. I love reading your comments on this matter, it's obviously one that's close to my heart. I wanted to mention that I didn't choose the lead image above as an example of what NOT to do- I'm a big fan of modern architecture and would happily live in that gorgeous home (which I agree, integrates well), or indeed either of its lovely, traditional neighbours. But I'm also aware that that kind of contrast isn't everyone's cup of tea, which of course is the crux of the matter here.

@Username26 - Yes, I'm most definitely talking about Westboro, and I agree the area has a very strange, patchwork feeling these days. I'm a big fan of my hometown but NOT a fan of the city's lax attitude toward developers.

@Nataliyak - I agree that Westboro (or any North American neighbourhood, for that matter) might not have the historical significance that European cities have. But the area still has charm and beauty (or used to) - many of the homes in Westboro are 100 years old, and have lovely features. Surely that is worth preserving? I too think a well-designed modern home in the area is perfectly fine, but unfortunately I see very few that meet that description!

I also loved The Big Orange Splot as a kid! Great book.

I own a flat in a listed property in Brighton UK - where practically everything is listed. I'm all in favor of keeping the facades of the houses consistent and appropriate, there, anyway.

On the other hand, when people in my daughter's neighborhood (in the US) got up a petition to prevent some modern apartment buildings changing the color of the clapboards from a warm medium beige to a cool medium beige, I thought it was completely ridiculous.

And, I have, from time to time, loved some odd little houses with outrageous color schemes or otherwise eccentric appearance that probably isn't popular with neighbors.

There has to be a balance, obviously. We live in communities, and on some level it's just wrong for one person to be able to destroy the character of a place that is home to many. The community or the neighborhood, has a much longer lifespan than any specific homeowner. So the community does need protection.

Unfortunately, the building that is the most different from the rest owns the streetscape. On a street where all of the buildings go well together except for one, the odd building is what the eye will settle on. The builders of these structures always stress that "it will create a great contrast to the other buildings." This always seems like a weak rationalization because contrast is the easiest thing to accomplish. A truly gifted designer can create a building that can stand on its own while also blending with its surroundings. I think it is not only aesthetically distasteful, but socially distasteful as well because it basically is saying the the only value the neighborhood has is as a blank canvas on which I can display my buildings.

Eleanor, I think you're way off the mark here on Westboro. The majority of the housing was suburban housing built by volume builders in the 1950s. It is less urban in form and density than most new greenfield suburbs.

The new housing that's being built is more urban, and yes, dense. It has a better relationship with the street for the most part, less emphasis on garages and big lawns.

And in terms of people being pushed out of the neighbourhood, they are taking $500k for a teardown or $1M for a large family home with them, on houses some of them paid less than $10k for.

Meanwhile, the intensification is helping the city keep it's urban boundary tight, saving valuable farmland, limiting the financial catastrophy of sprawl, and delivering more housing that the market (i.e. price) is signalling that people want.

All that being said, in areas with a real urban vernacular, there is a case to be made to keep it intact. And that is happening in neighbourhoods that were built 100 years ago; Westboro just isn't one of them.

I live in a wonderful neighborhood full of mostly 1920s and 30s Sears-type bungalows. It is a sought after neighborhood for just that reason, and most people who renovate or add on do so thoughtfully to preserve the character of their home. If a critical mass of people started tearing down their bungalows and building McMansions or modern homes (as I've seen happen in other neighborhoods), the character of my neighborhood would be totally lost, which would make me sad. While standing on its own I like the modern house pictured above, I would not be at all happy if it went up next door to me - it would stick out like a sore thumb on my street.

That said, sometimes architectural preservation goes too far - in an adjacent neighborhood recently a man was called up before the architectural review board because he deigned to tear down an old, rusty chain link fence on his property that the board deemed to have architectural significance.

@Username26

1. Most new construction in that area is replacing small bungalows with two, three or 4 units - semidetached or row homes for the most part, from my observations, which is definitely saving space. In fact of 40% of new homes across Ottawa are built this way, by intensifying land use within built up areas.

2. Very very very little of Westboro is 100 years old. The vast majority of the housing stock is post-war, vinyl-clad volume built suburban form housing. As the city has grown, this area is no longer a bedroom community and is urbanizing. I disagree that the residential streets in the area are really representative of a "well-designed area." The stock that was not built in the last 10 years is almost all single family homes on 50' lots, a luxury rarely found in even the most sprawly of sprawl being built on the periphery these days. Westboro became what it is because of its undervalued land and proximity to the downtown core, not because of it's urbanism; remember, up until a decade ago most of the main high-street was made up of used car dealerships and midcentury car-oriented uses. The Village present today is a direct result of the intensification of the area, and itself reinforces the growth in the area.

3. A home is a home, but in a market capitalist society, it is also an asset. Those long-time homeowners are sitting on very valuable assets, which are taxed in accordance with their value. No one is forcing them out. If they are over 65 in Ottawa you are not even required to pay property tax, you can defer payments to a lien against your house to pay when you sell or from your estate if you stay in the home to the end of your life.

4. A teardown is usually a home that has not been updated and is worth more to a builder to tear down and build new homes (usually 2 or more) than it is worth to an owner-occupier. It has nothing to do with size, just to do with the use the market demands of it.

"A well designed neighbourhood shouldn't need to be classified as historical to receive some consideration for protection anyway." Agreed. Again, I just don't agree that this is one of them. I think the new development in this area is bringing it closer to that point of a denser, more urban pattern, like those in areas in Ottawa like the Glebe, most of Old Ottawa South, Lowertown West, and Centretown.

Wow, great comments! I must say, I didn't intend this post to become a debate on my home 'hood (hence why I didn't actually name it in the original post), but I'll happily jump in…

@GJHall - I think we might be talking about different areas here. These days a HUGE swathe of Ottawa is labelled as "Westboro", which of course always happens when an area becomes so popular. The streets that I had in mind when writing this post are perhaps more correctly called McKellar Park, though even when I was growing up most people called it Westboro. Believe me, there are very few homes on my parents' street built later than 1940, and yes, several of them are nearing (or past) age 100.

I think @Username26 has understood my issue well; it's the huge, single-family homes in this area which I feel ruin the streetscape in the neighbourhood. I would definitely disagree that any of them have a better relationship to the street than the older homes, and in fact many seem more garage (double-garage, actually) than house!

I do agree with you that the newer, post-war homes in "Westboro proper" probably have a shelf life, and the multi-family dwellings being built there obviously serve an important purpose to the changing needs of the area and its inhabitants. Though I must confess, I have a soft spot in my heart for those homes as well, and would hate to see them all replaced by condos and those "big box" houses, which is what I see happening.

For what it's worth, I'm an advocate of green space surrounding Canadian cities and therefore DO support urban infill where it's appropriate and well-done. But most of the recent building in this area is simply not well done, in my humble opinion.

Hi Eleanor, yes that makes more sense now, McKellar Park is a different kettle of fish. Average sale prices there are $1M+ for a single family home now, and the zoning is very prohibitive of multifamily/semis etc, unlike "Westboro proper"

However, it should be noted the City is changing some policies on infill, details of which are here: (http://ottawa.ca/en/city_hall/planningprojectsreports/public_consult/infill/index.html) if you're interested!

I grew up in Annapolis, MD, and within the boundaries of the historic district, you practically cannot even change a light bulb on your porch without getting approval. I actually do think they have restrictions on the types of light bulbs that are permissible! It's a little extreme, but cities as well preserved as Annapolis in the US are rare and I agree it's important to maintain that integrity.

Now I live in a suburb of DC that is considered an official historic district, but most of the homes are craftsman bungalows from the early 20th century. There aren't any restrictions, however there are tax incentives for rehabilitating homes in a historically accurate manner.
I think it is very important to remain respectful of the original character of a home or a streetscape. At the same time, it is not like I want to completely deck out my home in arts and crafts fixtures. I don't live in a museum. But then I tell myself, that is probably what the previous owners said when they put up that awful wood paneling in the 1970s! So I try to keep and incorporate the original woodwork and fixtures as much as possible and choose modern items that complement them and are more timeless.

Dulcibella: Color is very seldom dictated by a historic review board in the USA. That is usually an HOA nit-picking thing.

Great conversation!

This is -- sort-of -- what I did my thesis on, I live in Ottawa, and a friend of mine just bought a $1+ million home there. NOT a McMansion, but rather, a 1950s Cape style with a backyard family room addition. Most of our friends live in Westboro proper, although we don't.

I think your fundamental frustration is with the weak design of the new construction, and the lack of integration with the older neighborhood. what is going on is that the new people who move in want houses the same size they would find in say, Barrhaven, but with a closer commute to work and Saslove's thrown in for good measure. and of course, developers are very happy to give it to them. No one wants to pay for good design, and the city probably does not want to hamper growth and is if Ning it difficult to be able to find a rationale to use for imposing design controls. It is not nearly as architecturally homogenous as the Glebe or even key streets of Ottawa South.

It's tough, but ultimately, I think what it comes down to is that in Ottawa we are not willing to incur any additional costs or diminish perceived value or functionality by respect I ng good design protocols or neighborhood design guidelines.

I'm thrilled that you've raised this question and this discussion because I think it is important.

ooops... I should always remember to proofread when I use the iPad...

Just wanted to add, that having been involved in designating heritage properties as well as districts, as well as participating in producing standards and guidelines for the preservation of historic sites, that our heritage protection tools are not as toothsome as those in other places, like the UK, like Europe, or even like the US. That is also at play.

But, fundamentally, we consider it almost frivolous to spend (or lose) money on developing good, sensitive design.

We live in Toronto in a gracious downtown neighbourhood of large Edwardian homes (the Annex). A couple of yrs ago a small-but-lovely corner home was sold. The new owners torn down the house & built what can only be described as a 3-storey shoebox. Not only does it tower over its neighbour blocking the light, but that side of the house is painted black & has no windows at all. The 'landscaping' consists of little shrubs around the walls. Period. The backyard is just stacked concrete shapes, next to a garage that looks like a miniature blockhouse. We call it the 'spite' house.

FWIW, I welcome homes of new design in a neighborhood provided they are scaled similarly to what is there (and are not displacing truly historic structures).

Thanks for the great topic and discussion!

I think for historical neighborhoods, it's important to maintain the aesthetic. With newer neighborhoods it should be up to the home owner. I'm not a fan of HOAs that dictate what you can grow in your yard, how long your grass has to be, that you have to have grass, etc.

I used to live in a historic neighborhood in a resort town and I think they took things a little far. I got a ticket for being parked in front of my own house overnight.

It is hard for me to pick a "side". As an owner, I would not like anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with my own property. On the other hand, I also don't like people messing up a whole block because they prefer to use excentric designs, cheap materials or just don't care to preserve the look most people moved into the neighbourhood for in the first place.

I think the right way to go would be for towns and neighbourhoods to have clear rules and regulations. I am against letting neighbours decide for others whether the new colour of their siding is "right". If they want to sign a petition, fine by me, but the fact that a majority of owners disagree on your choice of colours and materials shouldn't on its own be decisive - housing authorities should examine such petitions, and if they disagree with it, the petition is void.

By establishing clear regulations (I believe this is the case in my neighbourhood), towns can ensure that people who move into the neighbourhood are already in agreement with what it looks like and are not tempted to stray too much from its existing look. Where I live, you need a permit for everything that is attached to the house, and for the rest (fences, decks, etc.), you have to go by the rules as well. You are allowed to paint any colour you want provided it fits in, you can add any material or elements as long as they normally belong on or around a house, the height of grass and weeds is regulated (only to ensure that people mow their lawns and weed to a minimum standard) and certain trees and shrubs (i.e., willows) are forbidden because of the damage to foundations and water conduits and things that belong in the back yard (playgrounds, pools, etc.) are not allowed in the front yard. TV dishes are not allowed on the facade and everyone is required to keep the section of the sidewalk and street along their property clean (no garbage bags on balconies). No herbicides or pesticides containing hazardous or toxic ingredients allowed, but if you can prove to the city that you have a bad case of weeds or pests, they usually grant a special permit giving you an exception.

In short, they have clean directions on what you can and cannot do, but they also don't get carried away with regulating how people should live, and are willing to authorize things they usually don't if you have a good argument. We have harmony while we all have a relative freedom to do what we want. It is not the classiest neighbourhood, but I like the way the city regulates it. Thanks to this, people with crazy ideas just don't move in because they know they will not be allowed to implement their ideas.

Nobody ever protests the material and colour choices of neighbours, and the only time anyone complains is when someone doesn't keep their plot clean or messes up the curb, but even in that case, the problem has to be really bad and/or persist for a long time before someone raises the issue.

There are houses of different colours, different architectural styles, even houses with elements that don't necessarily fit together, but we do have harmony.

All this to say that the house pictured above would most likely be allowed, and even welcome, in my neighbourhood, even if there is nothing even remotely like it here. I just wish my neighbours weren't allowed to let dandelions go to seed...