Not every architect is up to the job. Nice flat access to the road, yard from hell, but, come on, that mud cliff?
Really? Someone needs a refund. Have a closer look. What part of this afterthought called landscaping was supposed to work?
Why would anyone build a flat land house to stand on a hill? I bet it’s going to be blamed on the landscaper. Really, it’s an architectural disaster. Given this lack of pretty much any practical understanding, I think it’s wise to ask: How deep are those concrete posts under the deck? What are they anchored in? Well, looks like we’ll have a view of it soon enough. Especially after it snows again and someone shovels it off onto the mud. Until then, they can always blame climate change.
Categories: Arts, Land Development, Urban Okanagan
Good observations, Harold.
I have the feeling that situations like this are sometimes down to the homeowner – somebody who finally has enough money to build his long-dreamed-of Fort Awesome. On a hill, of course – it satisfies castle-esque fantasies of power.
“I want pillars,” he tells the architect, who tries gently suggesting that pillars anchored in mud might not be the best idea. The client looks at him blankly for a moment. “But I want pillars,” he says.
And pillars he has… for awhile! Most things in Canada can be fixed with a blue tarp. This one will need some 2×4’s and some bracing pegs.