The new suburban aesthetic (?)

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by someone123

A more even comparison would be million dollar Halifax area home vs. million dollar Vancouver area home.

So one of the nicest houses in Halifax versus an empty Vancouver lot?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by DrJoe

This forum is truly hilarious. What in the fuck do you purpose the masses live in? We've seen examples of varying housing styles posted in this thread and not one is good enough. Some of it looks like shit but if you cant manage to compliment any of them I find that hard to believe. Well I guess it's not hard to believe, on Skyscraperpage it's the cool thing to do to hate on suburbia automatically without even thinking.

I don't understand this sort of defeatist attitude, that things built for the suburban masses cannot be well designed or use halfway decent materials. In the past, that was the case. In many other countries that is still the case - it doesn't cost more.

Everything that was posted here ranges from awful to mediocre - it's all schlocky pastiche modern design, and not really much of a step up from the schlocky faux historic pastiche architecture of the past few decades. But people just accept it as the best we can do, and lazy developers are more than happy to oblige.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

So one of the nicest houses in Halifax versus an empty Vancouver lot?

I'm not sure you can get an empty lot in Vancouver for that price. There might be a crackhouse or two left in an industrial part of East Van, but you need to factor in the cost of demolition and disposal of all the old mattresses and spoons.

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

So one of the nicest houses in Halifax versus an empty Vancouver lot?

Heh, GOT 'EM

[lio45]

Obviously apples-to-apples would be house value only.

The $1M Halifax home might be ~$100,000 land, ~$900,000 house, in which case the equivalent would be a ~$2,400,000 home in Vancouver in a neighborhood where standard empty lots are worth ~$1.5M.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I don't understand this sort of defeatist attitude, that things built for the suburban masses cannot be well designed or use halfway decent materials. In the past, that was the case. In many other countries that is still the case - it doesn't cost more.

Everything that was posted here ranges from awful to mediocre - it's all schlocky pastiche modern design, and not really much of a step up from the schlocky faux historic pastiche architecture of the past few decades. But people just accept it as the best we can do, and lazy developers are more than happy to oblige.

Seconded!

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Obviously apples-to-apples would be house value only.

The $1M Halifax home might be ~$100,000 land, ~$900,000 house, in which case the equivalent would be a ~$2,400,000 home in Vancouver in a neighborhood where standard empty lots are worth ~$1.5M.

Depends on what question you are trying to answer.

I guess yours answers the question of which buildings look nicest given a budget of $X. Another question is what sort of building you can afford, and another is what's typical in one city or another.

For the record I'm not lobbying for people to prefer suburbs in one city or another. I find it weird that people live in mid-range Halifax suburbs when they could have an urban house or a large rural lot with the same price and a marginally longer commute.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

That is absolutely repulsive (aesthetically)

You really think so? I wouldn't say they are beautiful, but I don't think they're ugly either, and I'd rather those than 10 white vinyl sided boxes that seems to be the default here. If I was driving past those in a suburb, I probably wouldn't pay much attention to them which I think is the best you can wish for with cheap housing, compared to the norm of 'gosh that's ugly'.

[Martin Mtl]

Everything that you reposted here looks ugly and depressing. But I hope you’re OK though, that was some outburst !

Originally Posted by DrJoe

This forum is truly hilarious. What in the fuck do you purpose the masses live in? We've seen examples of varying housing styles posted in this thread and not one is good enough. Some of it looks like shit but if you cant manage to compliment any of them I find that hard to believe. Well I guess it's not hard to believe, on Skyscraperpage it's the cool thing to do to hate on suburbia automatically without even thinking.

Most of the Halifax did indeed look like shit but the following example is nice but no one went out of their way to compliment it except a Halifax homer. Its urban, It's different, it's nice


Much of the Cobourg stuff was pretty nice...

Is this house ugly? I think not. The garage is a little large but it is a handsome house. What is wrong with it?


Nice house as far as I can see, no?


Cute house. No front driveway by the looks of things. You guys should love that but nope!


Beautiful neighborhood! A little faux but no driveways, walkable, landscaped, pride of ownership. Any compliments? Nope!


Much of the BC was nice. I will mass compliment them as they all had the same stuff working for them..

Beautifully landscaped, architecture with some thought that is conducive to the area, looks like quality materials, pride of ownership. What in the fuck is wrong with these houses?





Look at the damn landscaping here. Gorgeous


This place is a little cheesy but it's nice enough


Southern Ontario and the BC coast build some nice suburban homes and they deserve a little credit for it. Alberta 99% is awful, not sure about the rest of the prairies but they are likely similar. Vinyl, banal, little landscaping, monotonous, just awful terrible worst of the worst. Newfoundland is similar. Maritimes similar aswell but albeit not quite as bad. Haven't seen much out of Quebec.

[DrJoe]

Offer something else up. It's one thing to say you think it's awful but lets see the alternative. This is keeping in mind most people don't want to be crammed into some rowhouses where you can hear your neighbors fart.

I would love to see this mythical land of suburbia.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

Depends on what question you are trying to answer.

I guess yours answers the question of which buildings look nicest given a budget of $X.

Correct. (In my mind it answered "do Haligonians have better or worse architectural tastes than Vancouverites", which is nearly the same as "what does one typically choose to do with a $X budget in each city".)

I find it weird that people live in mid-range Halifax suburbs when they could have an urban house or a large rural lot with the same price and a marginally longer commute.

Totally! I've always found that to be the worst of both worlds.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

I don't understand this sort of defeatist attitude, that things built for the suburban masses cannot be well designed or use halfway decent materials. In the past, that was the case. In many other countries that is still the case - it doesn't cost more.

Everything that was posted here ranges from awful to mediocre - it's all schlocky pastiche modern design, and not really much of a step up from the schlocky faux historic pastiche architecture of the past few decades. But people just accept it as the best we can do, and lazy developers are more than happy to oblige.

In the past, even the earliest modern suburbs in 19th and early 20th century England such as the tudor revival architecture of "metro-land" were widely criticised for their aesthetics using much of the same language. I think one needs to remember that something can be "well designed" and still not be attractive to someone with high standards of architectural aesthetics. However, the structures may still meet all of their objectives including serving the functions of their occupants within the constraints of their budget and even appearing beautiful to them. One might argue what purpose is to be served by altering the designs of structures based on the preferences of passers-by who may never even set foot in them.

That being said, I'm not crazy about most of the designs either, other than a couple of the BC examples. But for me, at least 50% of architecture aesthetics is in terms of the context and setting. I find it next to impossible to evaluate a piece of architecture in a vacuum (which is basically what most of the east coast examples represent). And that is something that bother me about most suburban development. I need to see more than standard "token" landscaping. I need to either see it blended with with elements of the setting like being nestled into a hill outcropping of bedrock, or if the land is basically featureless, then something artificial such as narrower than usual streets, super dense foliage and vines, taller homes built tight to the sidewalk, etc. In other words, it's tough to create an interesting development with a sense of place from scratch, and an area that looks featureless or generic and lacks a sense of place will not seem attractive to me regardless of the architecture.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

Correct. (In my mind it answered "do Haligonians have better or worse architectural tastes than Vancouverites", which is nearly the same as "what does one typically choose to do with a $X budget in each city".)

Buyer tastes don't necessarily matter though. Sometimes there is nothing available in a style you want. Sometimes you buy the building that you know is uglier but there are a bunch of other trade-offs that are more important. This is especially common in a very expensive city like Vancouver. You might have to choose between an ugly house or no house at all.

The Globe and Mail home of the week is in Halifax. It can be yours for likely less than any of those Vancouver-area places pictured ($785,000 - this is not a giant, opulent mansion, but an example of the kind of thing that simply does not exist here): https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/...confederation/

I was interested in looking up land vs. improvement values for properties in Nova Scotia. These are available for BC but for the similar NS service online it looks like they only give the total value.

Vancouver has a bunch of real estate speculators and is a much newer city. Its urban infill is mostly either downtown or around rapid transit stations (which Halifax doesn't have at all), and there is little availability of convenient land for exurban development. The Burnaby and Coquitlam type suburbs make up a much larger chunk of this market than comparable suburbs in Halifax. Metro Vancouver has a lot of shiny stuff that 99% of SSPers would not be able to afford, and a lot of decently nice suburban stuff that is still marketed to either offshore buyers or people who are "downsizing" from their just-sold-mostly-tax-free $4.5M house to something in the more modest $2M range.

[SignalHillHiker]

Agreed. I wanted a downtown condo with a view. I was fine with high condo fees if there were amenities - a pool, a gym, etc. Simply did not exist here. The cheapest I could find in the core was $216,000 for a basement unit in a U/C condo building that has subsequently been turned into apartments. Which is what almost all "condo" buildings in St. John's are. There are NO amenities. You're paying a condo fee for snow clearing and grass mowing and that's it. And those fees are comparable to the mainland, where it gets you MUCH more.

So I ended up going for a $150K rowhouse in a near-core, poor neighbourhood. More space, I still get a taste of the urban lifestyle I wanted... but it was still a BIG compromise. I had enough money to be on a high floor of a downtown condo here, and they simply do not exist. If we didn't have the rowhouse neighbourhoods, I'd be in some shit bungalow that could be absolutely anywhere on earth. With the lifestyle to match.

*****

RE: The general convo... I think most of us agree what we're posting is hideous, right? I certainly don't think my examples are attractive in any way. Just sharing how the style of most suburbs has evolved over time. There are plenty of little infill things I like that I could share, but that wasn't really the question.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Agreed. I wanted a downtown condo with a view. I was fine with high condo fees if there were amenities - a pool, a gym, etc. Simply did not exist here. The cheapest I could find in the core was $216,000 for a basement unit in a U/C condo building that has subsequently been turned into apartments. Which is what almost all "condo" buildings in St. John's are. There are NO amenities. You're paying a condo fee for snow clearing and grass mowing and that's it. And those fees are comparable to the mainland, where it gets you MUCH more.

So I ended up going for a $150K rowhouse in a near-core, poor neighbourhood. More space, I still get a taste of the urban lifestyle I wanted... but it was still a BIG compromise. I had enough money to be on a high floor of a downtown condo here, and they simply do not exist. If we didn't have the rowhouse neighbourhoods, I'd be in some shit bungalow that could be absolutely anywhere on earth. With the lifestyle to match.

I live in a condo in a semi-suburban part of metro Vancouver (i.e. it has suburban roads but a rapid transit stop and some walkable stuff around that). I theoretically could buy a house but the ones in my price range do not appeal to me much (ugly, old without charm, and little space for a garden or pool/hot tub), and stretching to buy a desirable house seems risky. I do not feel like investing 80% of my money into Vancouver real estate.

If I moved to a city like Halifax I would probably buy a mid-range 19th century house, have a big renovation budget, and end up with a lot of cash left over. It would be in a neighbourhood type that does not exist in Vancouver. Likewise the suburban-but-rapid-transit neighbourhoods of Vancouver do not exist in Halifax.

This is why I talk about the markets being different, and why it is a bit contrived to compare segments of the two markets that appeal to different buyers. The buyers sensitive to urban aesthetics in Halifax aren't getting pushed out to Clayton Park, they are buying on the peninsula or maybe the nicer parts of Dartmouth.

[casper]

Originally Posted by someone123

I live in a condo in a semi-suburban part of metro Vancouver (i.e. it has suburban roads but a rapid transit stop and some walkable stuff around that). I theoretically could buy a house but the ones in my price range do not appeal to me much (ugly, old without charm, and little space for a garden or pool/hot tub), and stretching to buy a desirable house seems risky. I do not feel like investing 80% of my money into Vancouver real estate.

If I moved to a city like Halifax I would probably buy a mid-range 19th century house, have a big renovation budget, and end up with a lot of cash left over. It would be in a neighbourhood type that does not exist in Vancouver. Likewise the suburban-but-rapid-transit neighbourhoods of Vancouver do not exist in Halifax.

This is why I talk about the markets being different, and why it is a bit contrived to compare segments of the two markets that appeal to different buyers. The buyers sensitive to urban aesthetics in Halifax aren't getting pushed out to Clayton Park, they are buying on the peninsula or maybe the nicer parts of Dartmouth.

I spent my childhood in East Vancouver (about a 10 minute walk to skytrain) in a predominantly Single Family Home neighborhood. This part of the city was developed in the 1940s. Originally bungalows, many replaced by Vancouver Specials in the 1980s. Today its their weird mix of modern and homes similar to the ones above. I think the one thing that stands out is the mix and the landscaping. You can have a poorly designed house look good if the landscaping is there. Given the mix in ages and styles it feels real and authentic. Even the tile roofs, which says a lot. New sub-divisions don't have that.

I spend several years livening in a new subdivision of Saskatoon called Willowgrove. From an Urban Planning perspective the development (the city land bank) did everything correctly. Linear parks. Higher density core with some commercial. Walk-able everywhere. Back lanes on most streets. Yet doing all of that it still felt well artificial. Driving in almost felt like I was entering the subdivision Disneyland built. Given the city builds sub-divisions and try to get the lots sold to a diverse set of building you would expect more variety.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

I live in a condo in a semi-suburban part of metro Vancouver (i.e. it has suburban roads but a rapid transit stop and some walkable stuff around that). I theoretically could buy a house but the ones in my price range do not appeal to me much (ugly, old without charm, and little space for a garden or pool/hot tub), and stretching to buy a desirable house seems risky. I do not feel like investing 80% of my money into Vancouver real estate.

If I moved to a city like Halifax I would probably buy a mid-range 19th century house, have a big renovation budget, and end up with a lot of cash left over. It would be in a neighbourhood type that does not exist in Vancouver. Likewise the suburban-but-rapid-transit neighbourhoods of Vancouver do not exist in Halifax.

This is why I talk about the markets being different, and why it is a bit contrived to compare segments of the two markets that appeal to different buyers. The buyers sensitive to urban aesthetics in Halifax aren't getting pushed out to Clayton Park, they are buying on the peninsula or maybe the nicer parts of Dartmouth.

I think some of the older residential sections of Vancouver like Strathcona or Mt. Pleasant, maybe even Kits, are close enough to the Halifax type neighbourhood you are alluding to (either the South End or the North End), in various states of gentrification with plenty of early 20th century houses and adjacent commercial areas. Affording it is another matter. The areas which would have been most similar in Vancouver have long ago been eaten up by downtown, so aside from the fact that you won't find row houses from the 19th century, there really isn't that much difference in terms of actual lifestyle.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Architype

I think some of the older residential sections of Vancouver like Strathcona or Mt. Pleasant, maybe even Kits, are close enough to the Halifax type neighbourhood you are alluding to (either the South End or the North End), in various states of gentrification with plenty of early 20th century houses and adjacent commercial areas. Affording it is another matter. The areas which would have been most similar in Vancouver have long ago been eaten up by downtown, so aside from the fact that you won't find row houses from the 19th century, there really isn't that much difference in terms of actual lifestyle.

Example type of house I would think about buying (completely realistic, trading in an average Vancouver condo):



More fundamentally the Vancouver neighbourhoods you listed have wide streets and are spread out. And like you suggested I can't afford to buy in that area anyway, or wouldn't want to spend that much money to buy (since we have a frothy real estate market that can go +/- 50% in a few years).

[Architype]

Originally Posted by someone123

Example type of house I would think about buying (completely realistic, trading in an average Vancouver condo):



More fundamentally the Vancouver neighbourhoods you listed have wide streets and are spread out. And like you suggested I can't afford to buy in that area anyway, or wouldn't want to spend that much money to buy (since we have a frothy real estate market that can go +/- 50% in a few years).

I agree, as I already said most of that, just that aside from the brick row house type accommodations, (which are in limited supply) there really isn't much difference.

Many of the streets are actually narrow. It's easy to find nice character houses about 100 years old (albeit unaffordable) on a narrow street like this one, in a gentrifying area:
https://goo.gl/maps/ztFJKWjiYpD2

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Architype

Many of the streets are actually narrow. It's easy to find nice character houses about 100 years old (albeit unaffordable) on a narrow street like this one, in a gentrifying area:
https://goo.gl/maps/ztFJKWjiYpD2

To me this typifies the mediocrity of Vancouver neighbourhoods. Not necessarily a bad place to live but this is underwhelming as an example of a place that's far beyond most people's price range.

Here's another neat area I would live in (buy an old house in and remodel it in a historically accurate way; there are no affordable opportunities to do this in Vancouver):

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6508...7i13312!8i6656

Another example:

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.6416...7i13312!8i6656

These areas are not really in short supply. In a sense they are in less short supply than any of the Vancouver examples because they're much cheaper and there's no shortage of these properties for sale.

I agree that a lot of people won't care about this neighbourhood type. But I think it is different from what Vancouver has and there are many blocks like this. The lack of historic neighbourhoods here and prices that make all urban neighbourhoods severely unaffordable are two big drawbacks of metro Vancouver in my opinion.