Doric Disaster: The Vulgar Portico That Torpedoed a Pastor’s Niagara Mansion Dream

This “classic” episode from our first season has been re-edited for the benefit of our newest listeners, as a way to keep these evergreen lessons alive, We hope you enjoy listening to this story as much as we do presenting it to you.

Can a Pastor, a septic field, a circular driveway, a classical portico and a tennis court all coexist on one corner lot?

Apparently not, as a cascade of small missteps by the architect turned an extravagant renovation into a divine comedy of errors, revealing how easily overlooked details can shatter a client’s grand vision and drain both faith and fortune.

Connect with Pro-Demnity:

• Leave a Review     
• Follow us on LinkedIn
• Access our Risk Education Library
• Speak with a Risk Services Expert if you’re an Ontario architect seeking guidance for a risk management issue.

Thank you for listening.

Transcript

In our next story, an architect commits a collection of small errors on an extravagant renovation project, causing her client to invoke the wrath of a God. This story asks the question: Can a Pastor, a septic field, a circular driveway, a classical portico and a tennis court all coexist? Apparently not. We call this story: “The Portico Fiasco”

Pastor Love is the wealthy leader of The Church of Heaven religious community. Befitting his station, he purchased a mansion in the Niagara Region – an impressive residence on a corner lot, with a grand entry and circular driveway off one street and a generous side yard on the other.

The Pastor wished to install a tennis court in his side yard, but in order to do so, his front entrance would have to be relocated from one street to the other. The septic field and circular driveway also had to be relocated.

And just as important, he wished for a more impressive front entrance: a classical portico would do nicely.

In his claim, the pastor stated that his wishes had been totally frustrated by the performance of the architect Marcia Meanwell.

He had watched his paved driveway being dug up, his beautiful lawn destroyed to remove the septic field, and his house re-planned, so that the front door faced onto the street with the circular driveway. This last requirement had meant a total interior makeover, including the main stair, and had involved six months’ disruption at enormous expense. All of this had been in order to realize another of his extravagant dreams: having his own tennis court.

As it turned out, the architect had made a miscalculation. The client could not have a tennis court after all. The zoning didn’t allow it.

To add insult to injury, the portico was a complete fiasco. The Pastor had imagined a dignified entrance – in keeping with his position. He had requested a classical design in the Doric style, the acme of tastefully simple architectural understatement. But instead of refined elegance, what he got was a vulgar, unclassical pastiche, better suited to the Temple of Karnak or a theme park in a developing country.

As if this weren’t enough, another complication had occurred during the work. The site boundaries had not been properly located and marked, so part of the relocated septic field encroached on an adjacent property. As a result, it had to be completely ripped up and re-relocated.

The architect’s defence was straightforward: she had taken her design proposal to the building official and, based on the comments the official had made, she had revised her plans. But, it was actually the contractor who had obtained the building permit – and there had never been any mention of a problem with the tennis court.

It wasn’t that it couldn’t be built in the sideyard. There was plenty of room for it. The problem was that there was a four-foot height restriction on fences at the street line. So, the Pastor could have his tennis court, as long as he didn’t mind that the fence on two sides was barely higher than the net. 

As for the portico, the Architect had chosen the closest thing to Doric columns she could find in the Chicago metal supplier’s catalog. Yes, she agreed, the result disappointing, but the portico's sad appearance had more to do with poor workmanship than with architectural character.

The problem with the septic field was easy to explain. It was the fault of the septic field contractor, if they had produced a layout plan, it would certainly have alerted the Architect to the fact that the septic field was too large to fit on the lot.

Pro-Demnity considered several options for a convincing defense. However, one option seemed out of the question:  accommodation. Thanks to the unfolding of these catastrophes, there was clearly, no longer any spirit of cooperation between architect and client.

The Pastor had rejected the idea of switching the driveway and septic field locations, even though this change would have made it possible for a modified but usuable tennis court, because his grand neo-classical portico required an impressive approach.

There was nothing of the original concept that could be saved.

So, in the end, the septic field had been relocated once again, the bulbous columns replaced with more classical forms, the tennis court grassed over, and the new circular driveway installed as planned.

The cost of this remedial work had been documented – and a lien placed by the contractor had already been settled prior to Pro-Demnity’s involvement. Together, these things had the disadvantage of undercutting any arguments relating to inflated dollar amounts that we might have produced. If we tried to argue that the contractor had overcharged, or that the additional work resulted in a betterment, or, in other words, a higher quality product than what was paid for, the judge at our trial would have had to say, in effect, the previous lien judge had erred. This was unlikely. 

In attempting to reach a settlement, there were three factors to consider.

First, in the architect’s view, the building official should have told her about the fence height restriction. However, zoning was not the same department as Planning, and anyway, there was nothing to stop the playing of tennis, only that all shots would have to be kept extremely low.

Second, septic field calculations and dimensioned plans are usually produced for the Ministry of the Environment and the local health department, to meet their specific requirements. The architect’s only duty is to locate the perimeter boundaries and, in this sole task, the architect had failed. 

Third, the portico columns were defensible on the grounds that their selection was a matter of taste. The Pastor had not put his column specifications in writing – classically proportioned columns with correct fluting, base and capitals were only assumed. However, for obvious reasons, it would be difficult for an architect, to argue that the Pastor was wrong.

The Architect felt that she was being badly treated by the legal system. But we had little enthusiasm for allowing this matter to proceed to trial. 

The Pastor, whose religious leanings appeared to favour a “wrath of God” approach, had thrown in punitive and other special damages, but he settled for “turn the other cheek,” when it came to provable, out-of-pocket hard costs. Pro-Demnity therefore settled in accordance with the Architect’s policy.

It doesn’t always take a big error to generate a claim. Small mistakes can add up. In this story, a little forethought may have preserved the client’s faith in his architect and avoided an expensive calamity.

Lesson 1: Check the applicable zoning bylaws before you start designing. How often does one see tennis court fences on the street line? Corner lots have special criteria in many jurisdictions, in consideration of sightlines for traffic, setback regulations, definitions of front and side yard, and so on. The architect could certainly have checked matters out more carefully.

Lesson 2: Be sure the property boundaries are located and staked out. Septic fields can be tricky, and they have caused more than one claim in Pro-Demnity’s time.

Lesson 3: When it comes to matters of taste, consider your client’s dreams and aspirations. The portico fiasco was more farce than tragedy. But the same could really be said about the whole case – except that the money paid was no joke.