Some thoughts on putting together traditional and modern buildings

Development projects not located directly downtown aren't of general interest for this wiki, but I wanted to write a few words about a project in my neighbourhood. Schuhuum ("windy place") was the name given to a mansion built at the end of the 19th century on a large parcel of land in Rockland. It eventually became known as the Caroline Macklem Home when it was turned into a nursing home. Some years ago (5?, 4?) it entered the redevelopment stream. It has been nothing but shooting rapids for this property, taking everyone concerned on some pretty rough rides. For at least 3 years, the local neighbourhood association has seen variations of proposals to redevelop 1322 Rockland come before it and before city council. Nothing has so far met with approval. Below are my thoughts on the matter. These are my opinions only -- I'm not representing anyone here, nor speaking for anyone. Sorry I don't have any photos of the property to upload, nor site plans. Previous press coverage from this year includes this article and this one. There is a photo on the Rockland Walking Tour page (scroll down a ways) that shows the front.

~~*~~

Yet another iteration of a development proposal for 1322 Rockland was tabled at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on Aug. 17/06. Aside from the usual objections ("too dense"; "in conflict with Rockland Neighbourhood Plan guidelines"), councillors also continued literally to stumble over the lay of the land for this parcel, and the main house's unfortunate siting upon it. The unusually large plot (~2 acres) has a kind of parallelogram-ish shape, with the main house sited in the upper right-hand corner -- i.e., the NE corner -- which is also its highest elevation. If you drew a line just in front of the house (or "below" it on the site plan), everything south of that line has to be considered "front yard," according to the 1986/87 Rockland Neighbourhood Plan (RNP). The RNP states that front yards of mansions should not be built on because this obscures street-views of historic houses. However, in 1322's case, the issue is further ensnaggled because the lot's lower right-hand (i.e., SE) section, which is directly in front of the house (i.e., its literal front yard), doesn't meet the street. It instead meets the back ends of 3 (possibly 5, if you include the eastern perimeter) other properties developed on the street frontage.

Making things even more difficult is the fact that 1322's main driveway cuts a diagonal line across the property, from NE (the house) to SW (the street), thus making a "clean" North-South border or subdivision especially awkward, at least in terms of providing a generally welcome solution. In addition, that tiny tip at the SW corner of the property (which is also its lowest elevation), where the driveway meets the road, is the only point on the street from where the mansion can actually be seen. The neighbourhood plan's guidelines say that this view must be "preserved," even though it's the houses (and trees) in front of the lot at the SE end that actually "obscure" the view. What this means is that even if the property were subdivided, this would not provide a solution to the "view" desideratum posited by the Rockland Neighbourhood Plan. The resultant shared driveway issue would also be a stumbling block. The driveway is the only way off the property to the main street -- there is a side street (Royal Terrace) that runs along the east perimeter, but if the main house used the side street as its primary access, it would no longer have a Rockland street address, which would open yet another can of historical worms marinated in heritage sauce.

Up until this latest iteration, the current owner's proposals have always emphasised a complete restoration of the mansion to single family house status. This would have had to include removing a number of uninspired, stingy additions from the mid-80s when the house was used as a seniors' care facility. It would also have included massive reconstruction of the interior, whose "heritage" aspects were excised when it was transformed into a care facility.

The iteration before council on August 17/06 presented a change: it proposed turning the mansion into suites or apartments (a strategy used for almost each and every one of the extant mansions in Rockland, and generally accepted by the RNP as a way to save the old mansions), with clusters of townhouses built along the North-South axis abutting the driveway, as well as a smaller grouping of townhouses tucked into a "nook" of trees to the north of the 3 house lots at the southeast end of the property (but technically in the "front yard" of the mansion...). The resultant clutter of townhouses made the proposal very unattractive, and the planning department as well as councillors also agreed that the mansion loses "massing" and "presence" with so many other structures encroaching on its "breathing space."

An earlier iteration (also rejected by the neighbourhood and council) had proposed two apartment buildings with underground parking, which would have resulted in 3 large-ish structures on the property. But this idea was shot down because new apartment construction is also "contrary" to the Rockland Neighbourhood Plan. One has to wonder why this is so, given that the old mansions have essentially the massing of modestly scaled apartment blocks. It might be sensible to revisit that guideline. It was also the case that the proponent planned to include a townhouse cluster in that same "nook" referenced above; and in addition there is a zero-setback "coach house" on Royal Terrace, which runs north-south on the east side of the property, very close to the main house, which in all iterations is supposed to be developed into a single family dwelling. These are all factors that serve to complicate this proposal to the point where both the neighbourhood association and the city's planning department are becoming exhausted. The proponent must be ready to throw in the towel, too.

Now, I'm going to make some suggestions that will appear nothing short of heretical to heritage-venerating Victorians. First, I have to say upfront that I don't think the existing mansion has much architectural merit. It's unappealing to begin with, looking simultaneously grim and flimsy in just that manner that some over-fussed Victorian-era buildings have, and it hasn't been treated kindly by its various owners in the past two or four decades. Anyone who wants to set this place right has to sink serious money into it (and consequently will want to develop it in a way that's not going to be financially ruinous), and whoever does the job has to think unconventionally and outside the box. Returning it to its SFH state would, in my opinion, just accentuate its least attractive features by isolating and highlighting them.

The initial plan -- to "save" the house as a SFH and to add apartment blocks to the site -- was both conventional (in terms of the mansion) and out of the box (in terms of additional development on the site). Placing two "sympathetic" apartment blocks (with underground parking, vs. townhouses or other million-dollar SFHs with their usual above-ground space-hogging parking spaces) on the rest of the acreage was a stroke of out of the box thinking that should have been viable, but it was rejected, in part because the various components in combination left too small an envelope around the main house (which, if it is to be a single family mansion, needs a corresponding estate setting), and because the neighbourhood balked at new apartment building construction (a stance with which I disagree). Now that the proponent is considering conversion of the mansion into apartments after all, perhaps it would be wise to take a second look at how to be unconventional with the house.

Every single iteration has proceeded from the assumption that the 1980s additions ("carbuncles," as they were called by one architect) should be removed so that the house can once again sit in splendid isolation. But maybe that's wrong. Instead of subtracting from the built structures already there, perhaps it would make more sense to add on to them, albeit not in that "unsympathetic" and largely institutional, on-the-cheap style of the existing structures. Let's consider, though, how the mansion could be transformed if its south- and west-facing (and unencumbered) facades were maintained, while the east- and north-facing facades, already added-on to, were built out and up, to create a significantly larger "mansion." This could make the main structure serve as a now much larger (and more revenue-generating) keystone for the proposal; would allow the proponent to consider adding just one apartment block (instead of the two proposed earlier), specifically in the NW corner of the lot; build an additional SFH or duplex in the "nook"; and maintain the diagonally placed "front yard" view cone from the street. The coach house could be developed either as a SFH (as proposed), or incorporated into the larger, built-out apartment or condo conversion of the mansion.

Any additions to the main house should be clearly modern, and avoid mimicking the mansion's Victorian style. In fact, this might really be a terrific opportunity to showcase architectural innovation. In 2003, New York Times architecture critic Herbert Muschamp wrote:

"...the artistic pairing of old and new is distinctly contemporary. Additions to older structures are a defining building type of our time. The type is the product of a collision between two forces: the impulse to preserve and the need for economic development."

He was writing about Soldier Field sports stadium in Chicago, and adds:

"I call this type of design parabuilding: it is the modern tick on the postmodern host. New York examples include the Palace Hotel, a modern shaft that towers above the historic Vuillard Houses on Madison Avenue and 51st Street. Typically, as at the Palace, the parabuilding is designed as a discreet background to the existing host. Not at Soldier Field. Here modernity erupts with the jubilance of a prodigal returned. It's happy to be home." (See this page for the full article.)

I think Rockland could do with a bit of jubilant eruption of modernity. Of course, that might just be me...

For an idea of what the marriage of old and new can look like, see this page. The author notes:

"More and more, architects in the U.S. (and around the world) are seeing historic building fabric as a rich resource for making new, modern architecture. Historic architecture is revered as a cultural "found object" that can be mined for meaning, as well as a great counterpoint to sleek modernity.
"Many of these recent projects involve architecture that is undeniably modern but that respects and attempts to shed light on the old, without nostalgic references or mimicry." (from here)

Granted, these are large-scale public buildings, yet this aesthetic and approach scales well, from representative public structures down to private residences.

It's even possible to build new structures that look modern, even though they cannily reference the history of place, which in turn gives them a patina of age and sheer weight that faux heritage (the kind that's "tacked" on as decoration) never can.(**see postscript, below) This would be just the approach needed for additional free-standing structures on the 1322 parcel. For an idea of what this could look like, see for example the Queen's Building at the De Montfort University's School of Engineering in Leicester, England.

The somewhat "Victorian"-looking building in the photo at left isn't a historical relic, but one of the finest examples of environmental engineering built in the last two decades. See this page for more details, and for a virtual tour of its space-age interior, see here (note: you might require a Java plug-in for your browser).


But I must be dreaming.... Enough neighbours would probably scream blue murder over any intrusion of modernist innovation, and the proponent can't be in it for the art & aesthetics anyway, nor for the endless punishment of trying to develop a seemingly intractable parcel. It would, however, be sad if we just end up with another "Barbie Doll colony" of cookie-cutter overpriced SFHs or Townhouses. I'd rather see that mansion "erupt" jubilantly in the wake of consummating a marriage with modernity, and I would welcome a well-scaled new apartment block in the NW corner. (Imagine something as creative as the Queen's Building!) The owner could then still build a SFH for personal use in the "nook," along the quiet lane on the property's eastern perimeter.

Meanwhile, there's this plan to put wings on pigs... Dream on, windy place (Schuhuum)...