Metal is the new vinyl
Some of the first posts I made on this blog, more than a decade ago, were prompted by the NIMBYism expressed by residents and leaders of Saint John, expressed through their criticisms of vinyl siding.
It is discouraging over a decade later, citizens and councillors have focused their energy on the new villain of metal siding.
I think this building looks pretty good.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/saint-john-the-atlantic-metal-siding-1.6013957
8 comments:
I would have to disagree. This looks like something that belongs in an industrial park. Allowing this would set a dangerous precedent, can you imagine this on new buildings uptown and throughout the South End? What a nightmare. Kudos to PAC for not approving.
Love your blog, but I have to emphatically disagree with you on this. This is a case of an extremely arrogant developer who thought he could skirt the rules to save a few dollars. Nope! The original renders showed precast panels and that's what was approved.
Dangerous looking siding? Maybe it would make our city look edgy and modern. We'd be the rebel on the block. Maybe that could be our brand.
Halifax's Velo building shows that vertical metal siding can look good in a growth-oriented urban environment.
I don't know Mr. Cavanaugh, but I don't see how changing siding due to supply issues, and letting the City know when applying for a building permit, is arrogant.
"Dangerous looking siding? Maybe it would make our city look edgy and modern. We'd be the rebel on the block. Maybe that could be our brand."
Is that what you got out of the statement "Allowing this would set a dangerous precedent"
I don't see dangerous looking siding in the statement. Bending the rules for one opens the door for bending the rules for all.
He never waited for approval = arrogant.
This has NOTHING to do with NIMBY. NIMBY is not wanting a project built. The community supported this project. The is strictly about holding the developer accountable to building what was agreed upon based on the granting of 2 variances. Let’s not muddy the waters on this. The developer is upset that he was reported (got caught) and is playing the victim - it’s everyone else’s fault but his own. He’s not self aware and he won’t have the trust of the community in any future projects.
""Dangerous looking siding? Maybe it would make our city look edgy and modern. We'd be the rebel on the block. Maybe that could be our brand."
Is that what you got out of the statement "Allowing this would set a dangerous precedent"
I don't see dangerous looking siding in the statement. Bending the rules for one opens the door for bending the rules for all. "
--- Yes. I am skeptical of arguments that are based on concern about adherence to procedure. It is rare to hear a good-faith arguments made on this basis.
Is the bad precedent issue that the developer applied to PAC to amend the development agreement to use a different type of siding, and if PAC said "yes," then PAC would need to approve all applications to amend development agreements because they approved this one application?
Post a Comment