Link to letter on the Times Colonist website
A call for quality in architecture
A James Bay multi-storey apartment plan was rejected because it conflicted with the character of the neighbourhood.
Grounds for celebration? Yes. But this is a rare exception to standards widely practiced by our municipalities which allow ugly buildings to proliferate.
Langford boasts record urban expansion. But it is filled with architectural catastrophes. The view from the highway reveal townhouses and apartment buildings that are astoundingly ugly.
An architectural student who produced such designs would be advised to pick another career. Cardinal rules of architecture include balanced proportions, avoidance of disjointed structures and the buildings should blend into surrounding natural scenery.
Unfortunately many of these Langford structures break all these rules. They display a bizarre myriad of textures and patterns with collections of chaotic roofs. The overall appearance is of a five-year-old’s colouring book.
Some forms of modern art are indecipherable but we don’t have to look at them. But urban planning forces us to look at this visual pollution.
With the pressing need for housing, developers and architects just want to make money. Council approval bodies do not have ugliness as a criterion for planning rejection.
Unfortunately, when people are regularly exposed to bad architecture ugliness becomes normalized. Look no further than the side of our own legislature. The magnificent 19th century building is polluted by a yellow cabin on its grounds. It is an embarrassment.
I suggest three possible solutions.
All city/town councilors should be forced to attend a short course on architectural aesthetics. Install a permanent display in front of new structures that identifies the responsible architect. Finally, one of our colleges would have ample material to offer a course in their architecture program entitled “gross mistakes in urban planning.”
—Adrian Fine, Victoria