i^oao
.
the city op EDMCJMTON
DL'Vn.OFMENT PLAN RESEARCH SECTION CITV PLANNirJG DEPT
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
ARCHITECTURAL PANEL AND INTERIM DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
V
X
\ Report
by
NOEL
DANT
TOWN
Edmonton, Alberta.
June 8th, 195^.
PLANNER
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
ARCHITECTURAL PANEL AND INTERIM DEVELOPMENT APPEAL BOARD
Before the introduction to this City of Interim Develop
ment measures the City Commissioners had acted on requests from certain
citizens who had erected good quality houses in the earlier parts of
Windsor Park and Capital Hill and who wish to have these expensive
houses protected from possible substandard buildings being erected along side or near them in the future.
The Board of Commissioners, therefore,
decided to exert some measure of control regarding this matter in keeping
with the owners' requests and this was made the easier, administratively
speaking, in that by far the majority of land in such areas was owned by the City. In fact, the Commissioners decided that this measure of con trol was purely a condition of sale of City-owned housing lots in these choice areas.
When interim development planning measures were adopted
by City Council and a suitable Bylaw (1339) was being drafted to admin ister all aspects of development, it was decided that this somewhat ad hoc form of control of the Commissioners noted above over what later
became known as RESTRICTED HOUSING AREAS would the better be added into
the Bylaw and such control, as it was, handed over to a group of people well-trained and experienced in dealing with this specific kind of work. Under the Bylaw this group became officially known as the Architectural Panel and thereafter following its introduction attempted to see that the earlier citizens' requests and fears were indeed being met and watched over.
These safeguards insured that such choice areas would be
composed entirely of quality houses in which possible depreciative elements would be eliminated as far as humanly possible.
2.
Alsoj in keeping with certain recommendations of the Bland, Spence-Sales Report adopted by City Council, in which the Professors had
advocated the prevention of architectural monstrosities being erected in
this City, both as regards buildings and outdoor advertising media, the real function of the Architectural Panel as stated in the appropriate
clauses of the Interim Development Bylaw is found to be based on the phrase:
"when a degree of architectural control is involved" (Section 13).
Consequently, the personnel of such a Panel to be qualified to handle this work with experience, sympathy and understanding would have to be
conscripted from the architectural and allied professions as has sub sequently proved to be the case. Further, for administrative efficiency, it was also decided that the composition of the Panel should be partly
of suitably trained and responsible City officials and partly (in the majority) of citizens of equal qualification willing to work on the Panel without fee or remuneration and giving up office time in service to the
public. As of today there are in fact four architects, an engineer, a real estate agent and an assessor serving on the Panel, all fully quali fied and experienced men in their chosen professions.
The procedure laid down and mechanics of the workings
of the Panel were also written into the Bylaw as adopted by City Council, The Panel's status was advisory, in particular it advised the Interim
development Officer in all cases of applications where a degree of architectural control was involved and upon receiving such advice, the Officer was free to concur with or discard such advice when called upon
to process an application for development. Should he concur with such advice which might be contrary to the applicant's wishes, then the Bylaw
further provided channels of appeal by the agrieved applicant to the
V
3.
Interim Development Appeal Board from the decision of the Officer, in the normal way that such appeals are arranged from all negative decisions by the Officer for all forms of development. For the purpose of expediting such applications when a
degree of architectural control was involved, it has been customary after certain areas have been designated as RESTRICTED HOUSING AREAS to refer
all such applications for houses directly to the Architectural Panel, as the Officer is in any case merely another member of the Panel. At its inception the Architectural Panel obviously had to
learn its specific job through plain experience, helped by earlier criticism or advice in correcting the way in which it was operating as of that time until it was felt through such experience to be acting as satisfactorily as possible,
I should mention at this point that earlier
on His Worship the Mayor has sat on the Panel from time to time as an
observer and that to the best of my knowledge he has expressed no out right criticisms of its modus vivendi or its decisions.
In dealing with such an abstract element as design, it is naturally very difficult to put into cold words the feelings or decisions of the Panel with regard to any one particular design which
obviously falls short of minimum standards, but when a submitted design was felt by the Panel to be lacking in some inherent quality of com position, the decision of the Panel has been so worded as to give a derinlte direction or as definite reasons for refusal as is consistent
with an indefinite element such as quality of design.
Only trained men
in the particular professions of design can immediately understand and
analyse what is right or wrong, what is beautiful or ugly regarding any building, but it is quite another matter to be able to put such analysis
into writing intelligibly enough for a layman to make the necessary
changes if requested.
Consequently, the Panel has evolved a policy in
which the personal tastes of its individual members are eliminated in the following two ways;
Firstly, it has become the custom of the Panel in its deliberations to seek within itself a unanimous decision for each applicant (this happens
in over 99^ of the cases heard).
To do so it has of occasion bent over
backward in its desire to help the applicant by laying over more sub
standard applications than giving direct refusals, in an effort to have the design in^jroved by the time it came back for review at the next
meeting.
There is little delay for the applicant by virtue of this
policy if there is a sincere effort by the Panel to co-operate with the applicant and vice versa.
It should be remembered that the Architectural
Panel is one of the few official bodies in this City that meets regu
larly once a week.
In its desire to eliminate the personal taste element
of individual members of the Panel the deliberations are extended in
time until every minority opinion of design taste is resolved in harmoni
ous compromise - surely the only way in which a group of professionals can criticize or analyse a design.
Secondly, in my opinion and experience working on the Panel, the majority of the applications given approval by far the greater number are on the basis of only a moderate successful solution.
In other words, the
decisions of the Panel could be a lot stiffer if excellence of design
per se were the sole object of the Panel,
There are, of course, the
usual quota of approved houses of excellence in design and alsfe a modicum of design submitted which could only be called monstrosities
by anybody with a quota of architectural sensitivity and understanding. The following statistics are quoted to show whether the Panel is attempt ing to do a good job or not in the light of fulfilling a most difficult
5.
function in which public taste is involved:
From November 17, 1950 to May 21, 195^ Number of meetings
1^9
Number of applications for houses in restricted areas 1,3^2
Number of applications approved
89^-
Number of applications rejected
Although as mentioned above, the huge majority of land in these restricted housing areas is or was owned by the City there is
to be found the odd privately-owned lot or parcel of land.
In such
cases the City has approached such owners before the total plan was
drawn up to establish their opinion as to whether they have any objection for the Panel to function over their property as over adjoining City-
owned property. So far as I know there has been up to now complete agreement by the owners for the Panel so to function.
In point of fact, when the City sells a lot in these
areas, a special agreement of sale is drawn up which states that the purchaser will not commence erection of the proposed house until the plans therefore have been previously submitted to and approved by the Architectural Panel as satisfactory; such approval may be withheld not withstanding that the proposed building may conform to all existing
building, zoning or other relevant bylaws of the City, if in the opinion of the Architectural Panel its size, value, outer materials, architectural
style or appearance, setbacks, etc. are unsuitable for the district. In particular, the Panel assesses each hou^e individually as to its individual appearance, its siting, and its relationship to Its neigh bours. It is on these points that contention may arise between the
applicants' views and the Panel's views. It will be appreciated that there is nn noncrete substance to such an assessment by either party, as these assessed values are completely abstract and are in the realm
6.
of informed or uninformed subjective judgement rather than concrete fact.
These aesthetic values concern not only the desirable appearance of a
house, its relationship to adjoining houses both across the road and
alongside, but also to correct siting with regard to topography, scenic values and other locational factors.
The Panel's greatest source of poor design is from specu
lative builders and from potential home-owners masquerading as architects.
It is not often appreciated by the public or the speculative builders
themselves when confronted by the Architectural Panel that 99^ of the lots have been sold by the City under an agreement of sale which stipu lates the requirements of approval by the Architectural Panel.
The public is conversant with the monotony of row upon row of wartime and unrestricted housing and the mean cheap absurdity of
poorly designed uninterestingly and repetitively built speculative houses with elevations loaded with passe cliches of design or conventional and
uneconomic adornment of 'gingerbread'.
It can only be readily understood
that architects' schooling in the appreciation of fitness of design for
fitness of site, the composition, scale and harmony of the various ele ments of the elevations, fenestration, proportion, choice of roof, of
materials, of colour, of texture and the interplay of light and shadow all of which give to the building simplicity and economy, in a nutshell beauty - are in contrast with the bizarre, extravagance and sometimes hidoousness of the unqualified designer. However, the Panel has not been
formed to give the qualified architects the monopoly of applications.
In fact, the architects' designs represent less than 10% of all appli cations, The restricted housing areas have each been broken down into
three zones - "A", "B" and "C", in which minimum requirements are highest in "A" and lowest in "C".
In only "A" zones are architects plans
7.
mandatory, guides fot each zone have been drawn up showing minimum re quirements and are handed to each purchaser of restricted property.
These
guides are not rigid, in fact many schemes submitted and approved fall short of one or more of the requirements - each application is judged on its own individual merits.
Apart from the deliberations of the Panel in session, its Chairman is free for interviews prior or after the Panel sittings. acts as a liaison between the Panel and the applicant*
He
Applicants have
also been granted personal interviews with the Panel in sessioni Panel members periodically make inspections of the res tricted districts and are sometimes surprised to see the results of its
work.
Completed dwellings are mostly good, some are not so good.
The
Panel has had repeated requests to tighten up on its decisions; there
are pleas that designs should be even better than some of those approved.
However, generally speaking, I believe a visit to the restricted dis tricts themselves would convince anyone of the usefulness of the work of the Panel,
Such areas are tending to become the showplaces of Edmonton
- witness the Sunday afternoon 'parades' in these areas.
Owing to the legal provisions of the Bylaw as mentioned
above, an applicant whose design has been rejected may appeal to the Interim Development Appeal Board after the Officer has accepted the advice of the Panel.
It is because of this fact that I have been re
quested to write this report.
Recent criticism by an Edmonton builder
and the Appeal Board's decision with regard to his design have persuaded other rejected applicants to likewise appeal.
In its four years' existence only two applications out
of 1,3^2 have subsequently filed appeals from the decision of the Panel which have been heard by the Interim Development Appeal Board.
8.
The members of the Interim Development Appeal Board have asked me to state
categorically that they unanimously object to these appeals being brought before them, and they seek amendment to the Bylaw so that their wishes may be entertained and acted upon.
The members of the Interim Development Appeal Board state that they are opposed to hearing any further appeals from the Architec tural Panel for two reasons.
One reason is that their work is increasing
in volume to a point little short of impossibility - five-hour sessions
being the rule at their fortnightly current meetings and they suggest our efforts should be to reduce the number of appeal cases where possible
rather than add to themi
Their more important reason, however, is that
they feel that they are quite unqualified to intelligently judge an appeal based on architectural design of which they have no explicit training.
They feel that the Architectural Panel has been handling their
work satisfactorily and as the composition of the Panel includes four
architects besides others, the Board feels that the Panel is the group most qualified to deal with this kind of work.
At this point legal counsel was approached for advice, Btoth Mr, Garside and Mr, Alan Macdonald are of the opinion that the solution to the Panel's future activities should be based on the Honour
able Minister's Interim Development Order as a sanction for a new setup. They feel that although the Architectural Panel's work has been volumin
ous and requires unpaid outside professionals' time to sit at the
meetings (which the architects themselves profess they can ill afford) the mechanics of appeal therefrom are not at present at all satisfactory. They have in mihd the- hullabaloo caused over the sign 'Jesus Saves' some three years or more ago in which I was subjected to unwarranted defamatory statements.
9.
Before suggesting the recommendation of legal counsel for
a possible reorganization I wish to put forward the following brief thoughts.
The Panel works diligently long hours once a week.
It is
the most qualified group to deal with the architectural problems by the very nature of its membership.
It does not pass snap judgements, but
attempts in all cases to arrive at unanimous decisions (which take up much discussion time) in an endeavour to neutralize individual taste
preferences of its separate members. majority of applications are approved.
The record shows that by far the The Appeal Board has stated
categorically it does not wish to incur extra appeal work with which they
are not qualified to deal. satisfactory.
In short, the membership of the Panel is
Their decisions are sympathetic and the most satisfactory
under the circumstances, but there is something wrongly amiss which needs to be corrected in the mechanics of dealing with applications for appeal. The Panel's decision which might be reversed or modified by the Appeal
Board is not taken too kindly by the non-official members of the Panel
who consequently feel that their valuable time has been misspent.
Consequently, as an alternative to the recommendation of legal counsel mentioned below I propose a second recommendation, namely, \
THAT the Architectural Panel be abolished, and the so-called
"show-places of Edmonton" (i.e. the EESTRICTED HOUSING AREAS) be de-restricted and left to forage for themselves, all further
housing permits In such areas being awarded as for any other
house normally given a permit in a non-restricted housing area.
The recommendation of legal counsel i f i t should be
decided not to accept ray recommendatioir is based upon Section 10 of the Interim Development Order which provisions, if adopted, would infer the
10.
abolition of the title Architectural Panel and a new title given to the
group such as Architectural Board, or the Architectural Board of Review,
or the Architectural Review Board, with the same membership as on the Architectural Panel or alternatively and better still a membership com
posed of entirely non-City officers, the Interim Development Officer to present the applications to the Board, but without voting power himself. The composition of such a Board could be four architects, one engineer, one real estate agent and one member at large.
Such a Board would have
identical status to the Interim Development Appeal Board, i.e. that of
making decisions whether on approval, or rejection or of modifications
and with provision of appeal to the Provincial Planning Advisory Board when necessary, and not acting in an advisory capacity to the Officer as now obtains under the Interim Development Bylaw with regard to the existing Architectural Panel,
I further recommend that in the case of City-owned
property the agreement for sale be not signed until house plans for same have been passed by the Architectural Board,
In the case of
privately-owned property, before a neighbourhood unit plan is taken to Council for adoption all private owners, if any, be asked to enter into an agreement with the City that their land will be equally governed by the decision of the Architectural Board as if their land was, in fact, City-owned.
Noel Dant.
I1D:M