On "Infill"

The new home at 65 Victoria Street is gonna be a biggie:

According to this article, the finished building will have six bedrooms, seven baths, parking for six vehicles, and a walk-out basement. Neighbours say it will be 15 ft higher than the homes on either side. Its balcony will tower over the neighbouring balconies, lowering their privacy. 

London's Committee of Adjustment* apparently approved a request to increase the maximum floor area of a building on this lot from 4,000 to 7,400 sq ft., allowing this monster home to be built. The neighbours - NIMBYs or concerned residents, depending how you view them - complained about the increased size at the committee hearing, but were disregarded. Makes you wonder why there are rules in place at all, if an exception can be made for any landowner who asks for one. 

There are lots of questions here I can't answer. Is this really intended to be a single family home? Six bedrooms, each with their own bath, suggests it may be a student residence or Airbnb. Will it be crowded and noisy? I suppose the neighbours will find out. Eventually. 

Old North west of Richmond is already a hodgepodge of buildings from different time periods. Some look early twentieth century but most are mid-century ranch homes or late twentieth-century two-storeys. From an aesthetic point of view, I'm less concerned about a modern behemoth at 65 Victoria than I am in a neighbourhood more uniformly historic. That opinion, of course, shows my personal bias but I find the following contrasts more disturbing: 

  

A central tenet of architectural design used to be respect for context, for the suitability of a new building with its existing surroundings. In other words, a new building should "fit in," not "stand out." Even in the Victorian era, while some owners wanted their homes to catch the eye, practical considerations like building cost, material and height still gave most streets overall consistency of form and character. 

Some newer buildings of the twentieth century looked a little different but they were often isolated examples on a street of nineteenth-century buildings. They added variety and interest to the street while still providing a comfortable sense of continuity. I'm not sure of the date of the house at right in the photo below but it does fit into this row of older homes, not being too tall or too different: 

I'm also annoyed with the use of the term "infill." According to Wikipedia, "infill," in the urban planning sense, is "the rededication of land in an urban environment, usually open-space, to new construction" (the italics are mine). The City of London states here in 3.2.3.1 that "development is only considered infill when it occurs on vacant or underutilized sites within an established residential neighbourhood." 

So, infill means filling empty lots with new development appropriate for the neighbourhood, increasing density within the city limits, and reducing the suburban sprawl eating up our farmland. But the term is often used to mean the demolition of an existing building and its replacement with something huge, often single family, that doesn't solve the city's housing problems. Like at 65 Victoria, where there was an earlier home that was purchased by the current owners in 2015, rented out for a few years, and demolished to make room for the monster. 

In another example, also on Victoria Street, a small home like the one on the left was replaced with the oversize building on the right. The latter is completely out of scale with its surroundings: 

Below, another smaller home was torn down to be replaced by a large, overpowering structure:

So I agree that the character of a neighbourhood, particularly an older one, is valuable, that new construction should correspond to and complement buildings on adjacent properties. New buildings should add to the history of an older neighbourhood, not take it away. 

But the City of London wants development at all costs, regardless of what it looks like or where it is. Who cares if the neighbours can stomach it? Beware Londoners, you'll have to get used to the strangest objects popping up around you. Sorry, Old North.

*The Committee of Adjustment consists of five individuals appointed by City Council to deal with minor variances. This house is a big change for a "minor" variance, isn't it? Rumour has it the committee is pro development and doesn't take complaints by neighbours very seriously. 

The Forest City - Or Is It?

The City of London says it needs to remove big trees in Old North and some folks in the neighbourhood aren't happy about it. 

Much needed repairs to sewers and water lines have led to a need to cut down trees, mainly around Regent Street and Fraser Avenue. Originally the city meant to remove 41 trees. Then the number was reduced to 38. The trees in question have been marked with white rings. 

Old North neighbours have fought City Hall, protesting the tree removal, and signs have appeared on the marked trees. These folks aren't just treehuggers. While I don't live at Regent and Fraser, I do live in Old North and I understand that part of the charm of our neighbourhood is the mature trees. The removal of a large number could drastically change the atmosphere of the whole area. 

Of course, the City of London isn't just being mean to trees, regardless of what some Old North kiddies might think. This interview with a city staffer explains the need for infrastructure renewal and the risks involved in not removing the trees. Note: She states that London removed 579 trees in 2022 but planted 8,874, over half of which were on city streets, not parks. The situation is obviously complex. The city does plant saplings as well as pruning and chopping mature trees.  

All this makes me think about the continued use of the nickname "Forest City." Not only is it used in the above linked article, but by many London businesses, and - ahem - in the name of my own blog, because I can't resist using it either. Heck, even the city logo features a tree. Could there be some irony here? Should the Forest City really be cutting down trees? 

The earliest known use of the term was on January 24, 1856, when the London Free Press and Daily Western Advertiser referred to London as "This City of the Forest." The first organization to use the name was Forest City Lodge, No. 38, IOOF, founded in 1857.* Since then, the name has appeared everywhere - on base ball clubs, colleges, churches, festivals, a Thames River steamboat, even a cannabis shop. But why? Is it really because of our lovely forest canopy?

Most people assume the term is meant as a compliment - see here and here. Although here it says the British government coined the term to make fun of John Graves Simcoe. Personally, I think historian Orlo Miller was correct when he stated there is a "widespread misunderstanding of the origin of the city's nickname, the Forest City. It was so called not because of the tree-lined streets, but because for many years it inhabited a cleared space in the encompassing forest."** Simcoe may have wanted his "New London on the Thames" to be the provincial capital but settlers in surrounding areas were amused by the fact that there was nothing here but trees. Our nickname was a pioneer joke. 

That being the case, maybe Londoners should get over their Forest City obsession. Maybe too many residents can't see the forest for the trees? 

I'd like to see a compromise between updating infrastructure and saving Old North's ambiance. After all, we do need toilets as well as trees. An April 13 City Hall Open House suggested such an arrangement might be possible. A pilot project could potentially spare an additional 16 trees, leaving only 22 to be chopped. Let's hope London and its tree-loving residents can find some middle ground - with trees on it, of course. 

A worse change in the look of "Old" North is when earlier homes are demolished to make way for inappropriate infill. As an example, a house similar in size to the building at left was recently razed and replaced with the one on the right. There's more than one way to destroy a neighbourhood's atmosphere. 

* Dan Brock, Fragments From The Forks. London & Middlesex Historical Society, 2011 pp. 49, 52. 

** Orlo Miller, London 200: An Illustrated History. London Chamber of Commerce, 1992, p. 118.