Good morning everyone,
There are quite a few topics we could discuss today. BUT before things get going I needed to perform a “Jenny rant.” (It won’t get ugly, I promise).
Looking at yesterday’s re-designs I noticed a consistent theme throughout the floorplans. (Not a negative one necessarily.) The living rooms felt the same…they were given the largest space and furnished rather conservatively with similar pieces (L-shaped couch, 2 chairs, side tables, etc.). At one point I said to myself, “I’ve seen this design before.” That’s when I started wondering, “Why not design some smaller, more intimate, sitting areas?”
Let me clarify that I submitted my re-design before viewing any other plans, so my 2 sitting areas were not born of my observations of others’ plans. In my design I thought about the home being that of a retired couple. I wondered if they necessarily needed one large living area, especially since the original plan offered 2 distinct sitting areas, a sunroom AND living room. Would a retired couple like 2 smaller sitting areas to “shake things up”? Would they enjoy different choices as to where to entertain guests, have a cup of coffee and read the newspaper, watch t.v., or hang out while dinner was on the stove? These were just a few of the things I thought could take place in different areas within the footprint of the general living space. Would the couple appreciate the change of scenery offered by 2 sitting areas?
I’m not advocating overly complicated floorplans, but I don’t want to give up creativity just for function. Did anyone else notice redundant living room designs (placement, furnishings, etc.)?

Toronto is very traditional in the low-rise market. There is no market for innovative design. Having said that, I really do not think Toronto is unique at all in this respect. I think we found more innovative design in LA for three reasons – the uniform climate (more indoor/outdoor connection), the geography (the ocean, hills and canyons) and the larger population (speaks for itself). Given the choice between a modernist and traditional styles I bet people will choose traditionalism 95% of the time. And developers and builders, well, they don’t like to bet. The white picket fence is simply to ingrained.

The “long life – loose fit” paradigm would, of course, justify a big open space. These spaces do have drawbacks – privacy and noise. While I agree that fewer larger rooms are better, it is wonderful if you have a private sanctuary where you can escape.

Hello John and BradW,
Glad someone decided to check out the sight today! I guess Friday comments can get scarce.
Anyway…
John, I agree with “long life–loose fit”. Having input from the homeowner is important but you are right in that owners don’t live there forever. Longevity of design is key…it’s the same thing with certain classic clothes that never go out of style.
Speaking of the idea of “classic”…
BradW, I think you are on the money when comparing the modernist and traditional styles. Traditional is a “safer” bet for both developer and homeowner. BUT knowledge is power…at least for some of us. Before I ventured onto SlowHome I leaned toward traditional design both interior and exterior. Since SlowHome came along all I want to do is build a modern home with a sleek exterior and interior (but I want a comfortable couch–some of those “modern” ones don’t look very inviting.) I almost gaged recently when I saw some extremely ornate kitchen cabinets. I’ve been perusing websites for “green” countertop material…those countertops are hot, hot, hot.
In my mind I keep running into the same issue…what development (with an HOA) is going to let me build a house with a decidedly more modern exterior? NOBODY, that’s who! Everywhere I go it’s gables and peaks and arches and everything else that can be described as ornate stuck on a house exterior. I won’t even discuss what is on the inside of these homes. All I can say is I’m really glad I found SlowHome…maybe one day I’ll get to build my own SlowHome…cross your fingers!

I think MollyK makes an interesting point. It seems incongruous to be congratulating a single family house that maxes out in the moderately slow range (let’s say a 14 or 15) when condos and townhomes are getting 19s and 20s. In Toronto, the majority of small single family houses are crummy and the slowest ones are really not all that slow at all. Especially when we move into the large houses, at the higher end of available square footages, the amount of money you are spending would surely be enough to hire an architect to consider some kind of custom work (on a renovation closer to downtown or a smaller, more efficiently designed house). So could there be some kind of way to compare the custom work of architects, and the production of oversized, sprawled out single family houses? I too worry about the issues of style coming into the problem, but aren’t they already? Most of the houses we’ve looked at these past weeks are styled in classicist and traditionalist modes that lead to so many wasted and awkward spaces directly because of their style – symmetry and rooflines and so on. Just thinkin’ out loud here.

BradW,

You bring up a really good issue and one that Matthew and I have been discussing at length this week – How do we deal with the single family house? You are right it is too easy to dismiss it. My sense is that we have to find a way to make the slow home test relevant for this type of housing or we risk marginalizing the broader idea of slow home into an argument for small urban condo living. At the same time we do have to recognize the problem that most of them have severe issues with location and orientation.

The results from Los Angeles and Toronto confirm that this type of housing really needs our criticism and help in order to raise awareness about the design issues with these houses.

One idea that we have been thinking about is to generalize the awards (i.e. not restrict to one/ category)and give them out at the end of the month once we have all of the data in. At the end of each week we could analyze the results of all of the slow home tests (i.e. how many have good entry conditions, where were there the most problems, etc.) and record the group’s observations from the week (similar to your comments and those from yesterday). In that way we could compare different house types, different cities, and develop some sort of analysis that is more meaningful than just identifying the worst and the best of each type.

What do you think of this?

John,
I’m not quite getting your idea of generalizing the awards. Are you saying we would scrap the award for best in each home category? Are you proposing a room-by-room award regardless of the house type? For example, we might award “Best Entry” to a +2500 sq.ft. house and “Best Environmental Performance” to loft/condo submission. Would there be a “Best Overall” catergory for a city? Is this where you may be going?
If this is correct, it might give the single family home a fighting chance.

John,

Urban bias was inevitable as soon as we included factors beyond simply the designed floor plan. The walk score benchmark only adds to the problem. Certainly looking at the results from this week, how could you not favour a condo or townhouse in the urban core of Toronto. Then again, how suitable is this for a young family. Different types of housing in different locations meeting different needs. Let’s strive to make each type better.

BradW,
I completely agree – every type needs to be made better and everybody needs to know what to look for, and watch out for, in each segment.

I think that some sort of weekly analysis of the data we have all collected along with some summary comments might be a good augmentation to the awards.

I see others were writing while I was, so I’d like to clarify that the “above” comment by BradW that I referred to was the one about big, open spaces in homes: “These spaces do have drawbacks – privacy and noise. While I agree that fewer larger rooms are better, it is wonderful if you have a private sanctuary where you can escape.”

John, Perhaps you can reserve the right to not award for a category if none that “measure up” can be found that week. I don’t really see the value of “Best Entry” and so on, as there are too many that could qualify. Some of these details can become those of personal choice. (For example, some must have separate laundry rooms or a two-sink master vanity while others can make do with less.)

Terri,
Your last paragraph at 2:51pm regarding abandoned houses is something I’ve been pondering since viewing the numerous homesites in all the ‘new’ developments. Is there really a need for that many houses? Do these neighborhoods actually fill up quickly? What is the turnover rates for these homes? Do we really need more homes…is the population exploding that fast? OR do people believe they haven’t “arrived” unless they have a brand new home? Can someone give me some insight?

Hey Slowhomers,
What an interesting discussion this is. I have these discussions in my office as well with one of my colleagues. It’s good to know that others are too. I just wanted to share some comments on “what people want”. As part of our work here we run a lot of focus groups. You can consider this as you will but our marketing people think this is the way to go. The part of Sydney that I work in (not live in) is very conservative working class with public housing nearby. When we run our focus groups the overwhelming response is that people want their houses to look traditional on the outside ie. pitched roof, face brickwork etc. (not quite as ornate as many of the TO examples) and really funky on the inside – many of our customers would love John’s interiors. I had one woman say to my face (she didn’t know I was an architect) that “Architect designed houses are ugly”. Wow. I blame that a little on real estate advertising because many of the houses that are “architect designed” in the suburbs (whether they are or not – I think they are more likely done by draftsmen and labelled as architect designed) are ugly. They are not examples of good design but the real estate people think that because they are architect designed it gives the place a little more cache.

In Australia the majority of people will not even consider using an architect because it is too expensive. In the inner urban areas where sites are tight and property values are higher, this is where architects get the gig.

I don’t think most people are going to go for a modernist aesthetic. Purchasers at my project want a “house that looks like a house” We have shown focus groups dozens of images of alternative looking houses (that in my opinion look quite interesting) and the responses range from – I’m not living in that, it looks like a factory unit – That looks like a community centre- I don’t want to repaint that every few years etc., etc.

Personally I love many examples of Japanese houses with amazing sections that allow light and air through the houses in the most fascinating ways but I know most Aussies would say “what the…”

It’s a fine line we walk trying to get good design that works for people, that they are comfortable with, that they can afford, and can hopefully come at not too high a price for the planet. But if it was easy, everyone would be doing it right?

Molly K – I love that picture – I had a similar one that I sent to our design team. It would make my job of writing design guidelines a whole lot easier!;)

See you next week!

Late to it today.

I was struck by the fact that, in the weeks up to Christmas, I really thought that the developing SlowHome test was geared more towards suburban living, and thought that urban dwellings would suffer as a result.

The test has morphed and grown in an organic fashion since then, and I am now surprised that it seems to more favour urban living, and considers the “home” to not necessarily fit into the traditional category of “house”.

In the current test “The House in The World” is 6/20 – 30% – we have seen that this is having a big impact. The walkability score is a useful tool, but it can only provide a snapshot – neighbourhoods will change over time, for better or for worse. Though, I suppose, the test is also only a snapshot of the moment, too.

A number of folks approved of the idea of weighted scores for various categories, and I do think this should be the case – a bathroom is not so important as is a house’s orientation, say. However, I am wondering about the “all or nothing” aspect of the scoring. I know this idea also provided a lot of fodder in earlier discussions.

When we first starting applying the test, on the initial test drives I was interested to note that Doug Roberts chose not to follow the “all or nothing” approach, rather he would give partial marks when it was possible, i.e. 2/3 rather than 3 or 0. Maybe this might work more effectively (I don’t know) – but it would also mean a change in the online scoring system, and would not be so quite so clean and elegant and simple as John hoped to keep the test.

I do not wish to initiate another discussion about the relative merits of scoring systems – rather I hope to stimulate someone’s thought processes to consider viable options for John and Matthew. Do we need a specific test for each type of dwelling? Are there features specific to each category of dwelling that don’t translate across the board?

MollyK, I think you work in the field of psychology (?) I imagine there might be some studies about people and their homes – especially Jenny’s info that her Australian focus groups indicate that they all want to look the same on the outside, but it is the inside that is the real definition of who they are.

First one on John? Love to have one and yes meet everyone. About when are you coming to town?

**
I am baffled with the post today. Not posting anything and then showing us two properties that are not in the area of where most of the single family development is going on nor addressing the big discussion of the week- garages and lot width.

I come back to BradW’s comments. Looking here and in LA the single family looks to need the most help. Not everyone wants to live in the city and that is ok. Jobs are not just downtown either. City living is not for and should not be for everyone. It is noisy and kind of dirty at times. You cannot plant a garden easily to grow some slow food ;) The suburbs are a place where the majority of Americans call home and many view this area as having the desirable housing stock.

It is nice to think about reuse and remodeling in places that have a great location. Who doesn’t want a home customized to them? If it was economically viable we would all be doing bespoke homes. The majority (middle class) probably are not in a position to pay for it. People are moving out farther all the time as the city is expensive. I can maybe buy a two bedroom condo for the same price as a single family home north of Toronto in one of those up and coming bedroom communities. You do not see 3 bedroom condos. They must not be that popular. If they were, the developer would build more. They have nothing to lose as units are basically priced per sq foot. For single family there is economy in building the same stuff with the same stuff over and over. I dislike comments on the exterior style. Let us have our traditional exterior if we want it, it sells. That is clothing – not the heart.

The buyer and housing industry are not the only ones involved in the present state of things. It is also community and regional planning. We are seeing more density out in the suburbs and lots are getting smaller or narrowing. What is wrong with that? That is what is in the city setting we seem to favor. We comment on the site that these new homes feel like detached townhouses. But we find slow townhouses. I feel there is a sense that cars are bad when in real life they are a necessity. Finding something walkable is hard. In the city it can happen as well. I assume most communities do not have that great of a system for transportation. These things tend to follow development – not come before it- it does not make economic sense. (Before I forget I want to say ever since there has been a car, or for that matter a carriage with a horse, there has been a space to keep them from the elements). Look at New Orleans… still stretches of waste. People do want to come back. Part of it is the red tape but there is a myriad of zoning laws or local ordinances – lot width size or depth, setback from street, sideyard and light requirements, number of floors or height, garage or driveway placement, etc that makes it long and daunting and expensive. In LA a few of us posted homes in Irvine. I am surprised we did not explore that master planned community a bit further.

Here we are tasked to find new development and score it. I think it is a wonderful to find the swan among the ducks and applaud it. A developer may have just one PLAN that is slow and that is a start. We should jump on that. I would love to know more from them. How that plan is selling, what drove the design on the slow home, why did they orient lots the way they did or purchase a particular piece of land, in the whole of the development what are the changes people are asking for? *As you can tell I am really looking forward to seeing the visit to LA.

So with all of this in mind this post felt incomplete. I cannot understand showing us a city infill duplex with no parking, complete with Victorian vestiges, for around one million dollars. The older single family reno does not seem to have a garage, it is in the city proper in a nice neighborhood, is that only one bath for the bedrooms?, and probably just as expensive. How about an example of a good plan on a narrow lot with a front loading garage (even if not in Toronto)?

*****
There is some hope in Toronto. I encourage you, my slow home friends, to take a moment to look at the following home. A home that on day one of our search for a slow single family home under 2500 feet in Toronto, 3 of us posted independently. Despite our best efforts (thanks TomE) we cannot say yes in the test to the location or context. But it scored about as well as it could considering it is from a large developer and a front facing garage designed home on a narrow exurbs lot. You may not agree but I wanted to share it nonetheless. It is from the Minto Group, in the Spring Farm community in the town of Aurora. http://www.minto.com/buy-a-home-in-toronto/Spring-Farm/Baldwin~210ht.html

Thanks,
Mid America Mom

Comment:

Project Name: cochren homes limited

Size: 3860 sq ft

Project Address: 1526 Warren Drive, Oakville, Ontario

Project URL: http://www.cochrenhomes.com/portfolo/custom_warren.htm#

Slow Home Test Score: 14