A Bouquet of Topics: Arts, Food, Sports, Politics, Musings
Erickson House in Vancouver, from "TreeHugger.com"
Hey people, Just sharing an article I read from TreeHugger.com, an on-line news source about environmental issues. I read it for work everyday. This article is about an architecturally stunning house in Vancouver. Some other users have been commenting on the non-eco-friendliness of the house that currently exists, then asserting we should neither support the house that exists nor the development project that will be even more environmentally detrimental. I see their point but I agree with the comparison to priceless paintings. Judge for yourself, but I wanted to rebroadcast here. -Bridge
If you've gotta have a traditional monster house in Vancouver, you can't let history or genius get in the way. It was Arthur Erickson's breakthrough house in 1963, a stunning multi-storey wood-and-glass house that descends in levels. People are fighting to save it (architecture students are threatening to chain themselves to it) but the wimpy gutless excuse for a city planner Stephen Mikicich says "In the end, this is private property we're talking about,so we're really looking to encourage conservation by the tools that are available to us. " How about making some new tools that work?
Heritage West Vancouver president Carolanne Reynolds isn't ready to give up the fight, either.
"I really can't understand why a person with a piece of art like that wouldn't feel motivated to make it look its best and have the prestige of being in a house that's internationally known," she said. ::Province
It is time for Canada to develop preservation laws with teeth, and to ban demolition.
Erickson says "The David Graham house in 1963 launched my reputation as the architect you went to when you had an impossible site."
From Erickson's site:
The site for the house was a rock cliff dropping forty feet from the arrival level down a sheer cliff to a rock bench over the sea. The solution to this difficult site was the creation of a multi-storey house descending the slope in levels.
The formal idea of the piling up of hovering beams was the basis of the composition. These enclose the major living areas, which step down the embankment for four storeys from the carport to the bluff over the sea below. Each area opens onto a roof terrace over the living quarters below, so that there is maximum access to sunlight and view. Because of the ruggedness of the site, the outside living areas are confined almost entirely to the roof areas of the house itself.
A texture difference is achieved between the walls and box beams by using flat siding on the beams and a deep board and batten on the walls. The house is treated with a simple oil finish and the only other materials used in conjunction with the wood are used brick and a Welsh quarry tile.
This follow up comment by "gnoble" illuminates what the article could not:
Here's the deal. The house is owned by Shiraz Lalji (and his 2 brothers). Lalji is principal investor in an outfit called Larco Investments and owner of Hotspur Resorts. In addition to owning shopping malls and hotels, Hotspur is now taking over the Regent Las Vegas, fired everyone, and will soon reopen as a Marriott. But here's the catch, Marriott won't actually own it because the Marriott family is Mormon and can't own gambling operations, so they'll just operate the hotel, using their name recognition to drive business to it. Nice little ethical/religious loophole for them, eh?
This is the kind of slime we're dealing with here folks. Lalji has also not maintained the house at all since purchasing it 1988. This tactic is often used to "get rid" of buildings that might encounter resistance in doing so. How many mega rich folks would leave a "Monet" to rott in a musty basement. They do not view it as art, merely a conquest.
But it is art, and a national architectural treasure. I believe in property rights too, but where does it stop folks? I couldn't (and wouldn't) stop a fire station from being built 150 yards from my house because it is needed by the community -- for the greater good. Sucks for me but I'm trying to make it work by rezoning to mixed use.
You would think that the zoning laws there would have changed over the years to prevent rebuilding in such an environmental sensitive, seismically active, rock fall zone. You'd also think they could work out something where they restore it, take a huge write-off, then profit by renting this treasure out to other (more cultured, obviously) rich folks. "Come and be pampered in this architectural diamond, with unparalleled views !!" or something like that.
Always the extremes, rarely a workable compromise. ... from "They should be shot !" to "Then YOU should lose all of YOUR rights !". It is this very type of thing makes me feel that we are doomed, and I'm an optimist, sheesh !
"Pave paradise and put up a parking lot" or "Call some place paradise, kiss it goodbye"
Another One Bites The Dust: Erickson's Graham House
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 12. 3.07
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/another_one_bit.phpIf you've gotta have a traditional monster house in Vancouver, you can't let history or genius get in the way. It was Arthur Erickson's breakthrough house in 1963, a stunning multi-storey wood-and-glass house that descends in levels. People are fighting to save it (architecture students are threatening to chain themselves to it) but the wimpy gutless excuse for a city planner Stephen Mikicich says "In the end, this is private property we're talking about,so we're really looking to encourage conservation by the tools that are available to us. " How about making some new tools that work?
Heritage West Vancouver president Carolanne Reynolds isn't ready to give up the fight, either.
"I really can't understand why a person with a piece of art like that wouldn't feel motivated to make it look its best and have the prestige of being in a house that's internationally known," she said. ::Province
It is time for Canada to develop preservation laws with teeth, and to ban demolition.
Erickson says "The David Graham house in 1963 launched my reputation as the architect you went to when you had an impossible site."
From Erickson's site:
The site for the house was a rock cliff dropping forty feet from the arrival level down a sheer cliff to a rock bench over the sea. The solution to this difficult site was the creation of a multi-storey house descending the slope in levels.
The formal idea of the piling up of hovering beams was the basis of the composition. These enclose the major living areas, which step down the embankment for four storeys from the carport to the bluff over the sea below. Each area opens onto a roof terrace over the living quarters below, so that there is maximum access to sunlight and view. Because of the ruggedness of the site, the outside living areas are confined almost entirely to the roof areas of the house itself.
A texture difference is achieved between the walls and box beams by using flat siding on the beams and a deep board and batten on the walls. The house is treated with a simple oil finish and the only other materials used in conjunction with the wood are used brick and a Welsh quarry tile.
This follow up comment by "gnoble" illuminates what the article could not: