44 homes, 12 classified and below-market affordable (with 10 being fully accessible) is worth the trade of 3 houses. It's not pretty, but probably doesn't have to be - although there is nothing inherent about affordable buildings that require them to look cheap (as this one does). The street design is highly questionable but obviously not the developer's fault.
Generally I rank projects like this in order:
Ideally a development would check both boxes, but for all the terrible, equally ugly multi-family going up in the deep burbs - thus failing both requirements - this isn't the worst project possible.
- Does this increase density in an location / design that supports a more "urban" form and lifestyle such as walkability, transit usage?
- Is this project attractive looking?
That is almost certainly the case here.Architects sometimes have limited input on buildings like this, Clients have a design vision that the Architect has to work around. Not sure if this was the case here, but it wouldn't surprise me given that the client is a homebuilder.
Ouch. Sometimes it hurts to know what could have been done.Very cohesive design, understated and sophisticated.
Seriously though, if you are going to build a cheap building, you could have just went with all brown siding and left it boring like a 70s apartment building. Why keep tacking shit on? Red squares of varying sizes, multicoloured WTF stone, white vents, orange over hangs over some decks, all sorts of shapes of windows, a "cornice".
I want to buy the architect a beer and ask him what informed his design decisions and what his vision for this thing was.
Something like this thing; cheap to construct and not an eyesore.