Over 1000 homes, what an accomplishment, to the all participants, kudos.

One mixed bag of thoughts that has been on my mind this week is what factors are really behind the development of today’s homes, and communities. The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) has been under tremendous pressure to expand during the past 2 or 3 generations. Towns like Richmond Hill, Aurora and Newmarket to the North or Mississauga, Oakville and Burlington to the west are really one big tract of development. Even Toronto itself recently (1990′s)amalgamated eliminating Etobicoke, North York and other local governments. (The latter driven by potential savings by reducing overlapping and inefficient provision of services such as transit and waste removal.)

Gone are the days when we built one house to add to the stock. Now we build “Communities” and “Lifestyles”. It’s almost assumed that these new spaces will be somewhat different (better) than the rest of the established community.

Now to look at the growth in the GTA it is important to see where the new residents were coming from. Is the growth based upon changes in family or are there other trends? Instead of parents, grand parents and 6 kids in one house you now have parents and 1 child occupying the same space.

On that note much of the growth of the GTA’s population in the 80′s and 90′s was due to immigration. Brampton as an example has a large East Indian community. That being said many new Canadians tend to migrate to larger cities and communities that offer the support that they need to adapt to their new country.

Looking at the larger 2500+ sq ft homes as an example many of the buyers are first and second generation Canadians that brought with them the resources to buy such a home. But what they want is a large home, palatial feel, all of the amenities that make them look successful to their family and peers back home. Properties that were simply not available in pre-IT India and Hong Kong were not in question here. The Indian caste system had little bearing on Canadian purchase power.

These are just ramblings, but basically it is important to see why we have the homes being built that we see today. There are so many other factors, marketing pressure, keeping up with the Jones’, availability of credit to purchase a home, low interest rates, changing work environment from manufacturing jobs to services and knowledge based careers, etc.

I see tremendous value in analyzing the data compiled over the past two months but all of these factors have to be assembled to look at the trend to see where the market is going and how the Slow Home philosophy can best to adapted.

And while I am on a roll let’s talk a little about single family houses. In older neighbourhoods, for example Elbow Park in Calgary or River Heights in Winnipeg, the streetscape includes lane ways. The houses, some very modest, some very grand, face the street and garages face the lanes. Beautiful. So I ask you, why is this practice not commonplace? It has nothing to do with house design. It has to do with money. High land cost. High development costs. More housing equals more taxes. More density equals less cost for services. Etc… The reason detached single family homes largely fail has little to do with architecture and everything to do with urban planning.

I also like the idea of a change this week. Frankly, I was burnt out long ago. I’ve conserved energy by looking only at plans with scores of 14 or more. And over the last couple of weeks they have been few and far between.

That said, what do we do this week? It seems like we are scratching at the lid of a Pandora’s Box. The new-home market os each place seems to reflect the social strata there–something that is invisible to anyone who does not live in that market. For example, James points the different societies found in different communities of the GTA; information I had no knowledge of. It’s also information that really goes beyond a home design platform, yet obviously explains what we found as we looked for Slow homes (especially in the single-family home segment).

I think we all know that what we’d like to see and what we do see are two different things. As I said yesterday, we might find homes that are environmentally sensitive and/or within a favourable walkscore but not necessarily well-designed. If we analyze the data, what can we reasonably conclude? There are factors beyond the developer, and we will only dig deeper into social or economic issues, which, as BradW says, is less architecture and more urban planning.

I guess I don’t know what we can do with the data we collect without having to get into a lot of issues that are beyond the scope of analyzing individual homes.

O.K.
I’ve got a suggestion for next week. I think the redesign submissions have been really good and informative. I enjoy looking at everyone’s and getting ideas. I also like having Matthew’s constraints because it provides a challenge just as in the real world. I’d like to do some redesigns with specific constraints…maybe something Matthew has dealt with in the HouseBrand remodels. We don’t have to redesign an entire floor…maybe just a section that a homeowner wanted more functional or needed a door added but encountered problems.
So what if we can’t solve the problem of suburban sprawl or urban planning let’s get back to some basics of SlowHome design…at least for a while.

While we may buy into the Slow Home “House in the World” ideals, are they really practical or even achievable? Certainly not everyone can live in an urban setting…or can they? Of all the places I have been Tokyo comes close. Seemingly endless humanity. I loved it there but I wonder about the quality of life long term. The other image I have of this urban ideal is from Blade Runner…

I have a confession…when I hopped that plane to Dallas I actually went screaming into the night to catch it. After I saw the scores from the Toronto houses <2500 square feet I was disillusioned, BUT still hopeful. However, when the same scores started to surface for houses over 2500 square feet I thought to myself "Check Please." Then I asked myself…"Do I really want to go to Dallas?" Being a glutton for punishment I decided the change would do me good. I'm so glad we're not going there next week. I've been and believe me…it ain't a pretty sight, at least for single family homes.

My second thought has to do with the data…..

When I downloaded the data that we have collected into a spreadsheet and started to look at it as a whole I realized that we are doing something quite remarkable. I don’t think anybody has ever done this kind of work before. While some of the results may feel obvious to those of us who have been working on the project, my sense after spending a career researching in this area is that they are going to be a big shock to the average person.

I think that most people who are interested in residential design have an intuitive sense that there are fundamental problems with North American production housing. But this is the first comprehensive review of design that provides more than anecdotal results. This information, gathered in a mass collaboration process with a standardized questionnaire that eliminates style and price is going to catch people’s attention. If we can continue to the end of this marathon (and I agree with everyone’s sense of fatique) and if we can analyze the results a put it into an easy to understand format – we can rock the housebuilding industry and get some real media attention that could actually result in some real change.

Also, it would be nice to see the LA video…

One last thought….

I agree that the old format of design projects and what’ wrong with this house exercises was fun. At the end of last year, however, I had the sense that it was becoming too repetitive. There were also a lot of comments questioning why we were doing the same thing over and over and what the bigger reasons were. There were a couple of people who suggested that given all of the problems with mass produced housing, slow home should be about more than just having fun drawing on floor plans. In the context of the housing crisis, climate change, and all of that bad design we talked about each week, I took these criticisms to heart. The stakes are too high to not get more involved.

I decided to take Slow Home in a slightly different direction by contextualizing the original exercises into a more activist framework. It seems that if I am going to ask all of you to put your precious time and energy into something I want to make sure that I am honoring your efforts by having all of our individual acts coalesce into something that is bigger than all of us, something that can perhaps actually make a difference.

I have spent the morning going through the posts for the apt/lofts in Toronto. Looking at the analysis and comparing the plans is fascinating. There are relationships, trends, themes emerging that are really interesting. All of the hard work from the group is making all of this visible.

What we are doing here is important. That it is happening in a mass collaboration effort is remarkable and I deeply respect all of you who are working on this.

I guess that is enough of a “rant” for now.

BradW,

I think the examples will emerge in next week’s analysis. I am working on it over the weekend.

MollyK – As a staunch defender of luxury and excess, I am sure I will come up with something…

James Murray Scott,
While searching for LEED and green homes/developments for scoring purposes I came across some inspirations but never posted them. I will not miss that opportunity again. Thanks for reminding me to share my findings. I’m going to check out your contribution right now.

I started following this site after reading about John Brown and the slow-home movement in DWELL magazine. I could not agree with his philosophy more! This blog has the potential of not only raising awareness but actually initiating change and improving quality of life. It takes time and great effort, but anything worth doing does.
From following this I now realize that the choices out there are dismal. I suspected as much. That said I am sure that this group will find the exception in the coming months, a model so to speak that should be applauded and followed. Next week everyone could weigh in with what their criteria would be for an ideal slow-home. For example I believe any new housing construction needs to include a geo thermal system and/or solar technologies along with passive orientation to receive any points for environmental performance. Also as I understand that location in a walkable neighborhood makes sense, I think that it is only in theory that people use their cars less. For me no slow-home would have a two car garage. I do find that rethinking floor plans is important and productive. Nothing should be taken for granted in the space we call home.

I would like to 2nd Murray’s request for the return of the “ultimate library” and the addition of a link page to great reference sites. I didn’t make notes on all the books I wanted to buy before it disappeared. The first book you recommended was Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart. http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm Lots of interesting reading on this site. Further, my second most favourite site after Slow Home is http://www.ted.com A good video from this site http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/william_mcdonough_on_cradle_to_cradle_design.html John, I think this would be a great site, for you to promote the Slow Home movement, I would love to see a lecture by John Brown on this site, it would be very fitting, “Ideas Worth Spreading”
I enjoy the conversation this week, on why the general public is attracted to the conservative exterior facade on a house and are a little more adventurous with the interior. I personally wish that the general public would be more adventurous with the exterior, especially in Toronto. Some interesting reading along this line but a little off in a tangent, product related, not housing related. Emotional Design, Why we love (or hate) everyday things, by Donald A. Norman http://www.jnd.org/books.html

As for suggestions for next week, I would also like the second the motion to hear more about the House Brand projects, particularly, the major reno’s of 60’s – 70’s modest single family homes. Since this right in line with my very slow home project.

Ok, enough rambling, drywall and painting completed on the home office / library, gotta go install the baseboard and build a bookshelf, today.
Cheers

I have been an interested follower of slow home for a few months and have appreciated the tremendous effort people have put into their posts on the city tour. I have a couple of comments to make. The point has been made that there are an awful lot of fast homes out there! I think that perhaps the active searchers would happy to not have to report on the bad homes and I would be thrilled if the homes I was looking at had high scores. If the really fast ones didn’t even get past the reviewer then we could look at the nominees with a more critical eye.
I also feel that when looking at the detached single family homes we are inevitably draqged into urban planning concerns. Planning is of course crucial. However I don’t think that the slow home test takes this into account in a fair way. New houses, if they are not an infill are automatically deducted 3 to 6 points before we even start. A whole separate search could be made for well designed new subdivisions.
A second concern is the walkability score. We seem to be relying on it too heavily. When I scored my own home it was had 50 points. This is depite my having an express bus service within a 5 minute walk and just a few of the amenities found within 15 minutes are 2 grocery stores, deli, liquor store, banks, drugstores, doctor and dentist, library, bookstore, parks and playgrounds and 3 schools. Schools don’t even seem to factor into the walkability test so far as I could determine.
A third comment then I will stop. The slow home concerns do need to get out to the wider community. There are two major audiences, to my mind, professionals (developers,architects, planners etc.) and consumers. They will have to be approached differently. I feel like going to the new development home shows this spring and giving slow home tests to the hundreds of people who come out.
Oops, I said I was done but have to pass this along. Several months ago my husband and I went to the on site sales office of planned condo development in a terrific location. None of the 2 bedroom 2 bathroom units had a walk-in shower. There were two other couples in the office at the same time and when we mentioned this they all said they hadn’t noticed and agreed that they would prefer a good shower over a second tub. The saleswoman said no-one had mentioned this before and that she would pass our comments on. We went back today to see if construction had started and when we looked the plans again 2 of the units now had walk-in showers in the en-suite! Coincidence—mmm?

[img]tolargehousestats.jpg[/img]

Wasting time again …

I was thinking about the reliability of the statistics – that is one person’s 4 may be another person’s 5.

This becomes significant at those boundary scores between the categories of fast-mod.fast-mod.slow-slow or 7/8, 13/14, 17/18.
I only looked at the scores for the >2500 sq.ft. Toronto houses, but attached are the stats plotted a couple of different ways.
The graph on the right is the simply the scores plotted vs the number of times scored – 134 houses in total, by the way.

The bar graphs show what happens if all the boundary numbers shift up (e.g. – the 7s become 8s, the 13s 14s, and the 17s 18s) or if they shift down (e.g. 8s become 7s, 24s 13s, and 18s 17s). In this last possibility there are no slow homes.

One exercise might be to have all participants score the same house, given the same background information on the house (location, orientation, eco-friendliness, walkability, etc). This might more closely mirror a real-life scenario where the house-hunter is actually on site and knows all the background of the house and know wants to know what it looks like inside.

I would be curious to know if we all came up with the same score, or not.

Any statisticians out there?

A study/second bedroom without a window! The kitchen chamfers were attributed to the organization (which is poor). Dining and living are good, but the bedroom door opens directly into the living room – not nice.

Loads of wasted space here. The dining table is fit for a board room!! The bedrooms are a bit silly, with the one “friends” room facing the main public corridor, but especially the master which has a bed many miles from a window. The super sized kitchen is also ridiculous and it buries the cooktop, forcing the cook to work facing the dark corner. OH I couldn’t forget to mention the column in the master bathroom could I???

Circulation is a problem here. Kitchen is not very good, no room is left for dining! The master bathroom opens onto the toilet and is very small (especially compared to the master closet).

Another from the LEED project- beleza.

One of those longer entry halls. This plan could have been done better. The use of odd angles on the pantry and utility closet, kitchen counter, and bedroom wall is that – odd.

They must like double galley kitchens for these smaller plans. The living has two good walls (one is window) and then another wall has that see through fireplace to the terrace of unknown size. The dining room is out of the circulation which is wonderful. That utility closet confuses me… is that a pillar in there and so I cannot put a basket inside? Biggest faux pas of this plan- a bedroom WITHOUT ANY CLOSET (it is in the unattached bath I guess). Yep you are going paying over 400k US for an almost 1000 sq foot unit without a closet.

Mid America Mom

This building is smack in the middle of the Belmar Center (a new shopping and entertainment district in the heart of Lakewood, CO – a suburb of Denver). Although the orientation is good, there will be some overlooking issues with the unit next door looking into bedroom 2. The entry lacks a closet, conflicts with the laundry (where do you hang things to dry?), and is really just a long hallway that leads to the main living spaces. It’s a bit wasteful. Master door swings strangely into the room and would have been better without the 45 degree angle. Otherwise, things look pretty good. Balcony will be nicely shaded in hottest part of the day, the living space is efficiently laid out and connects to balcony.

Walkscore 17/100. The most frustrating part about this one is that the kitchen is angled for no reason at all and creates all kinds of problems. The kitchen itself is well laid out, and relates well to the rest of the space in terms of view and connection. The biggest problems caused by the 45 degree angles are wasted space and tight space. On the one hand, the “great room” ends up having all of that leftover floor area, while the closets and bathrooms end up being cramped and hard to use.

Another from spire. They seem to have issues with scale of furniture in this development. Using my trick of the dishwasher or tub – the couch is only 2 deep which is not real (more like 3).

DisLikes: The second bedroom and closet is too small (9*10 and 3 feet) for a 1600 foot unit! No study or dedicated space when we have such a small second bedroom and two living areas, tight aisle in the kitchen.

Like: Faces mainly south, outdoor living well two balconies, bathrooms are reasonable. Nice living space.

*The family space is really too small for that function so I would do a small four seat or banquette and then two groupings in the living area.

Mid America Mom

No site plan available. Bad parts: entry and dining fight for space, entry has no closet and dining is just a bistro table; bathroom is an odd layout as you open onto the w/d closet like that, looking at the toilet. Good parts: kitchen is nicely equipped, living looks good, balcony is well connected, and the bedroom works in spite of that jog in the wall caused by the column.

The worst part of this unit is the entry. The door opens right into the living room and the closet interferes with the size of the dining area. The corner fireplace will make furnishing the room difficult. The kitchen works but is really too small. The laundry is in a closet that is too small. The rest of the unit is okay but not great.

Strange layout. It’s not exactly a Guernica of a floorplan (in the virtuostic, emotionally moving sense). Unnecessary angles strike again!

Hi everyone, thought I’d give this a try! Okay, so the biggest problems with this apartment are with the entry, the dining room and the guest bath. There is no entry space – you just walk right into the kitchen. This isn’t very nice. The space called “dining” is too small to be useful and the guest bathroom door opens right into the table. This is unpleasant. Secondary concerns are with the size of the second bedroom and whether there is enough space to move around the bed and whether the width of the living room is too wide for a good furniture layout. The balcony is too narrow and the master bathroom is verging on being supersized.

This unit has an interesting proportion – long and narrow. This means that all of the rooms will have good daylighting. The entry should not have opened onto the kitchen counter and the sink. A small wall would have made a world of difference. The kitchen has a small square island. This is awkward. The dining room also feels like it might be too small although it still got the point for dining. The long narrow configuration of the plan seems to have left some wasted space in between the living and dining area although this may be more the result of a bad furniture layout on the plan. The worst issue, howevever, is the guest bathroom which is located right off the main living room.

The only problem here is that the bedrooms are split up, creating privacy issues with bedroom doors opening directly onto public spaces, and requiring extra circulation space (just like today’s unit!). The balcony has some excess space over to the right side, which would like be a good place to put your plants to get some sun.

Weird geometry, entry into the kitchen, no space to dine, triangular balcony, laundry beside the bed. Enough said.

I appreciate that the bathroom is shared. The dark study space is sucky. The hallway into the unit isn’t so great, nor is the space conflict between the dining and bedroom. Good sized terrace, but I have no idea which way it faces (there’s no site plan or north arrow) to say if it’d be very usable most of the year.

I dislike how everything is chopped up and separate in this unit. Media room my eye! Also, the patio is a joke. Bedrooms: get on your own sides, no touching, don’t even look at eachother. Good. Stay there.

The master closet is a bit awkward. Have to check that measurement on the second bedroom due to the jog in the wall. Dining table location blocks access to the deck. Mostly a good unit though.

This unit has a lot of good things going for it. It is a good proportion and well organized with the master bedroom, den, and living room all with windows. The utility spaces – bathrooms, laundry, and closets are also well placed at the back of the unit. They are also well organized. The biggest problems are with the entry and dining space. The door opens directly into the dining room. While this may be acceptable, the room is actually too big and the table
feels lost in the room. This makes the front entry problem more noticeable.

This is an awkward residence. It is really big, over 2,000 square feet but there is so much wasted space. At the same time the second bedroom doesn’t have a door and has an almost unusable closet stuffed into the corner. The kitchen is too small for a unit this size and the big study is an enclosed room with no natural light. The master bedroom has an awkwardly proportioned sitting area in the back that is difficult to furnish because of the door to the bathroom. Finally the front entry is too tight and the hallway to long and big. Overall, this is not a very well designed unit.

Lost this test somehere and I got to do this quick. This is in a LEED building in an up and coming area. Proposed rail transit is right there. Great amenities.

This is a pretty standard narrow unit with bedroom space on one side and living on the other.

What I really like is the placement of a half bath, laundry, and closet right in the back entry area. See through fireplace is WONDERFUL! The sizes are good as it has over 1000 sq feet. bedroom suite could stand to be shrunken. We do not know the size of the terrace so I had to say NO. I also said NO to siting since the area is not that great (industrial) yet.

Mid America Mom

Oh man, I really really don’t like the picturesque curving hallway! Although there are 2 outdoor living spaces, neither seem deep enough to fit furniture and let you get by. The powder room is unusable – how do you shut the door once you go in??? The office is equally unusable thanks to the column and the complete lack of light. Awful. Stupid curve ends up carving into the kitchen island, leaving less room to work. Finally, separating the bedrooms like that makes for too much circulation.

No environmental features here, but the orientation is west, and in Denver that’s good. The best: dining, kitchen and entry. The worst: bedrooms (one is dark and another has an awful jogged wall and a closet + toilet to boot!), living room – where???, and overall circulation. Seriously. That’s one atrocious living space.

The good: The location and orientation, kitchen – living – dining space in spite of some wasted space due to the bay window. The bad: Circulation route into the living space, a lack of environmental considerations. The ugly: The closet space! A windowless bedroom! The worst laundry room!

Walk score of 91%!
On the current Google map, there is a large empty lot across the street from the Riverfront park apartments. Difficult to judge the siting although there is green space on one side and a plaza on the other – so good for the time being.

This is a big unit and it uses all of the space to create generous rooms that are pretty well designed. There is a very good entry and living, dining spaces. The kitchen is verging on being too big, however, with a lot of floor area in the center of the space. The biggest problem is the study space. It has no natural light and is too small to be very useful.

A loft conversion in the existing 1920s building incorporated into the project. South facing. The problem with this unit is its proportion – the back half of the unit will see no light at all. This makes the so-called study which is actually supposed to be a second bedroom (because who would really buy a 1623 sq ft one bedroom?) a windowless space. The computer room is equally crummy since it too has no light, but also has to share space with the mechanical and laundry areas. The master bathroom is way too big. I think that the island in the kitchen is strange turned like that and without a spot to sit, but it’ll fly. There’s also no reason why the master bedroom has to be accessed like that right off of the living room in this much floor area. No reason at all.

The entry into this loft is not very good and I am worried about the location of the dining area. It feels like the table will obstruct circulation. The interior and exterior living spaces are good. The master bathroom is ridiculously big.

This is a bad design. There are almost no windows. The bathroom is too big, the kitchen too small, the bedroom is an odd shape, the bedroom closet is unusable, and the living room dining room will be dark and difficult to furnish. The only points are for the perfect walkscore and the study since there wasn’t one.

This unit is less wasteful than the MCA unit that I also analyzed. However there are still some big problems. The entry is way too big but still doesn’t seem to have a closet. The great room is an odd shape and the second bedroom doesn’t have a window. At least it has a double wide opening that faces the window. The master bathroom and closet are more reasonable in this unit as well.

This analysis is for the plan on the top right of the page. It has a better entry and kitchen than the unit on the top left and doesn’t have the siting problem with the stair. However, the long angled hallway is very awkward. The angle also negatively impacts the second bedroom and its closet. I like the alcove for the dining table and the living and kitchen are good. The door to the bathroom is unfortunately lined up with the toilet.

On this site they are proud of the developer and architect. BUT at this development I tried to find the worst offenders as there were not really any good ones.

This corner unit suffers from angleitis, wasted space, too big of space ..the entry hallway is HUGE, tight space at the entry door, and not a good use of space (laundry in closet and no desk area which is amazing when we have all this wasted space). The dining space well we have that one wall but then all this wasted space all over so not sure where the table should go. YES on: I reluctantly gave them YES on the double alley kitchen (it is OK). The outdoor space looks nice. Siting and walkscore.

Picked a condo – they also offer leases, in the master planned community of stapleton (the former airport). The entire development meets energy star standards.

I picked a south facing unit with a patio. Worst thing is the bedroom and den do not have ANY windows and are at the rear of the unit. It also features a rare eat in kitchen (L shape) by the way of a wrap around island breakfast bar that has access to the patio. The living space is plenty of room, light, and its own access to the patio. But the outdoor doors swing out so where would you put furniture and be able to circulate?

Mid America Mom

Back to Moda for the best plan I could find… slight angles but not too extreme to cause issues. Walk score is 78. It faces south. This plan also has an L kitchen with a wrap around breakfast bar for its sole dining area (no to dining as with over 900 sq feet you think you could have a table- I would place one in the living area personally). The deck is not deep enough to place anything and the two access points with out swinging doors make it impossible to really use it. The bedroom, bath, and living room work. I like the entry door swing direction. Not much circulation. The laundry is a NO since you would not be able to place a basket there.

In keeping with my habit of looking at the smallest unit and the largest unit in the same building I have looked at two units in the Broadstone Vesta. The Rome unit is almost twice the size as the first unit and has some elements which work better. Notably there is an entry, unfortunately the extra space created extra bedrooms and the number of doors and openings into the main living space means that there really is no living room or dining room. The angle of the kitchen tile in the plan also seems a bit awkward, a straight line of tile just past the kitchen island would create much more defined kitchen space.

This ones for John, because I know he loves to talk about the useless space angles can create. Note that the only rooms in this apartment which actually work are square!

Flashy rendered floorplan but not info on the specific square footage of the space. Overall, this apartment worked well as long as the windows are not facing directly south or west.

This unit has some problems. The biggest issue is that the bedroom has no windows but the study does. This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. The entry is bad. It is too narrow, has no closet, and opens into the kitchen. There is also no dining room. Jamming the table onto the back of the kitchen counter is not a good idea. The indoor living space is good but the outdoor terrace is too narrow to be very useful.

A long hallway by any other name is still a long hallway. The “gallery” in this unit must be 20 feet long. I do appreciate that there is an adequate entry space at one end, however. In terms of overall organization, the access into the bedrooms is awkward and I think it will be difficult to have a dining table where it is marked on the plan. The door swings from the hall and the balcony make it almost impossible to place a bed in bedroom 3. I also think that the location of the family bathroom is a problem. It is too far away from the bedrooms.

This is an analysis of the first plan (top left). The entry is really awkward. There is hardly enough space to open the door. No closet and a long hallway that looks into the side of the fridge. The location of the bathroom is also awkward. I don’t think it would be nice to have to walk from the bedroom to the entry every morning and night.

Aside from the crazy entry hallway this is a really well designed unit. I like the way all of the rooms are organized and they will all get lots of natural light.

The second bedroom in this loft has no windows. I think this is bad. Other than that the unit is pretty good. It certainly has a better entrance than the other two floor plans I analyzed in this project. I have to say I also like the so called “pocket study”. At least it isn’t trying to pretend to be more than it is. I also like the configuration of the bathroom.

This is a small unit that is mostly well designed. My biggest concern is that the bedroom doesn’t have a door. I think this is because then guests would have to go through the bedroom to get to the bathroom. The reality is that they have to do it anyway. This is a big flaw with the design. Otherwise it is a pretty decent 938 square foot unit. Building has a walkscore of 91/100 and no Environmental Performance features.

Why do walls get chamfered off? Is it supposed to help you to move around the corner quickly without hitting your hip? The master bathroom’s sinks are separate from the toilet and tub which is weird. The living room looks big, but then you have to imagine the clutter at the front door, the circulation space to the bedrooms and to the patio, and then the corner fireplace. What was a big looking space is actually quite tiny! The dining room is basically for a breakfast table only, since you couldn’t fit a table for 6 in there.

See my review of this unit in the Which House Should I Buy? analysis.

KPMB Architects. Hard to find much fault in this unit in terms of the Slow Home Test. Surely it will be a very very expensive place, but that said, you’re getting a very very nice condo. They handled the split bedrooms well, putting the circulation space at the back of the living space. If there is a complaint, it’d be about the laundry room sharing with the mechanical unit (less room to hang your drying clothes. Maybe the access to the master could be a bit more private too…

Poor location, no green considerations. Siting is not that good since there are a bunch of different units facing different ways and at least 4 per floor are right in the corner with overlooking issues from neighboring units. The entry leaves something to be desired. Although I don’t like the angled corners, the circulation space is limited and the unit is divided well to get spaces that need light near the windows (also the unit’s proportions help with this). I like the main space in spite of the kitchen’s strangely misshapen island. Good job getting efficient services and bathrooms in the back part of the unit – my only reservation is with the laundry facing into the hall like that leaving no room to work.

My biggest concern here is the fact that the two bedrooms are on opposite ends of the unit, and the living kitchen and dining space are just fit in as a kind of widened corridor that connects the two bedrooms (or the master to the entry if you prefer to look at it that way). So the living room is undercut by the circulation route, and the kitchen is marooned is the dark corner. The second bathroom is off too since the shape of the room means you can’t close the door once you get in! Nice dining room though. And the entry is good too.

Expensive downtown property at 1,281,000
Wow- walk score is 100! The property faces east, next to a drive and two story commercial lowrise, and nothing on GREEN. The plan is good except the study has no window and there is some dead space near the master bedroom door (No to Organization).

The Museum Residences of Denver is right next to the newest addition at the Denver Art Museum. This unit has all the feel and angles too! Most of the living space and one bedroom look toward the addition. Great walk score.

So many issues. The entry is large with angles and no closet to speak of. Wasted space near the kitchen and in the entry. The second bedroom would be hard to place a bed,the closet sticks out, and you have a small amount of window light. The master room I cannot tell exactly where the bed is to go and either way looks too narrow. Where to put the living and dining furniture would be hard as we have no focus or help to determine. The laundry is in a small closet (and this is over 2000 sq feet sorry NO). The kitchen is OK though they need to ditch the angles on that island. Surprisingly we have baths that are not supersized. Mid America Mom

I have to be objective on this project and follow the Slow Home Test, but I don’t like this project even though it scores really well. I’m not a fan of angular architecture that doesn’t seem to be about anything other than an architect’s whim – in this case the angles don’t seem to serve a purpose, but all the room by room points get full marks. My only real design critiques are that the coat closet shared with the pantry space is annoying and I worry about the lack of windows in the living and dining space. Also, the master walk in closet has too much floor space, otherwise things seem to be working well.

Mixed results in this unit. The organization is poor – the access to the master bedroom/ bathroom is odd. The biggest problems in this unit are the laundry machines located in the entry closet (with all the guest coats!), the “study” space is nothing but a closet, there is no dining room and the proportion of the segmented bathroom with the huge toilet area is very strange. Overall, this is disappointing work from such a well known architect (Daniel Libeskind).

I scored it the points for organization as the circulation is quite well done even though I feel the proportion of the spaces is not right-the bedroom spaces are as large as the living/dining spaces and I think this is too bad. The only other major problem is that the kitchen is too small for the size of the unit-the Antero unit from the same building has a much better and well proportioned kitchen even though the unit is smaller. The laundry in the front entry closet also loses a point.

Residences 3,9,15 overlook a private park and on towards downtown Denver to the southeast.

Located in Riverfront Park, The Park | ONE Riverfront offers 18 stunning new loft residences overlooking either Commons Park or Downtown Denver. The city views will be preserved indefinitely as this development lies directly in the Union Station ‘view corridor’. From this location, it’s an easy walk to the Plaza and retail shops, or across the street to Glass House and the new Riverfront Athletic Club, only accessible to Riverfont Park residents.

Out the front door is Commons Park with miles of walking & biking trails along the Platte River and over the Millenium pedestrian bridge is historic Lower Downtown Denver (LoDo), with its endless array of restaurants, pubs, museums and cultural performances.

Designed by 4240 Architecture, the building exterior features and abundance of glass, ultra modern design, and it’s own private outdoor park.

Nice plan with a great outdoor space – my only complaint is the dining space is too small.

Awkwardly shaped with terrible organization, this plan has a bad kitchen and an almost useless dining space that is really just circulation.

Not much to say here, the plan is not “bad” but it really leaves me feeing empty – it all seems sort of average.

A fairly good plan – I only worry about the door swing to the deck – I feel it would make the dining space awkward with a table. I also couldn’t give the siting point(s) because without a site plan, it’s impossible to tell where this unit is in the building and which direction it faces.

This unit is really quite terrible. It is the curse of being a middle unit. The architect is trying to do something interesting but this falls short and the result is a bunch of spaces that don’t work at all. The deck is too small to be used, the kitchen island is really useless, the dining space can only fit a really small table and the bedroom has no window and a terrible angled wall that makes the bed placement awkward. The study is a notch in the wall – it looks too small to even hold a lap top!

Only missing the environmental component.

This unit is really hampered by the introduction of the 45 degree angled wall into the plan caused by the unit’s awkward location in the building. This is a corner unit that should easily be able to accommodate the program of two bedroom and two baths without the need for the odd angles. The outdoor living space is too small for any function and the master bath and walk in closet are both really cramped.

A big unit with some supersized features. The kitchen really suffers in its location and has to work around a very unfortunate structural column. The dining room is a joke – are those some sort of “faux” columns to define the space?

Both of the bathrooms in this unit are ensuites. This means that guests have to walk through one of the bedrooms. Not very nice! Also the terrace is too small to bother with.

This is the first plan that I have reviewed with a 45 degree angle that I actually think works OK. Bedroom number three is the only one that really suffers in this plan.

Good room by room unit

unfortunate column, no outdoor space, no site plan, no env. info, good location.

Major organizational problems here. The long hall at the entry is a real problem as is the location of the main bath right next to the kitchen. The rooms are not bad, but the overall design is flawed.

Missing enviro point, kitchen and entry also no gos.

Blue Sky in Erie CO Walkscore was 9 LOL. This is a non split two bedroom plan that is wide. Bedroom closet in one is quite large and the other needs help with its angle. The laundry is in a closet in the bedroom hall near bedroom doors. The master bath vanity and tub are too large. The dining is too small. The larger patio cannot fit much with that door there. The fireplace and TV area was a nice thing and the kitchen is passable. Mid America Mom

Same builder as Blue Sky. oh they have a commitment to providing entry level homes at a good price. Problem is delivering a good design. They did give us one bath in a 2 bed unit and though it is a bit large I am giving them the point for trying. Laundry is almost in the kitchen :( Mid America Mom

WOW outside the downtown area of Denver this had a 69 so I gave them Yes for walk. No mention of green and no site plan.

This is a wide plan that has much to offer. Kitchen in the dark back and living toward the front. The master bedroom you cannot see into the bath from the bed though I wish they flipped the door on the closet or moved it toward the entry. Kitchen is a U and space to move. Balcony can handle a few chairs! The dining is too tight with the breakfast bar there. The laundry is in the bathroom and no place to put a basket down. The entry suffers from the entrance to the kitchen. Mid America Mom

The 9300 East Florida development in Aurora CO has a 3 bed condo with attached parking. Nothing provided on the site, site plans, green features… It is not walkable.

I thought the plan worked but the organization could have been better. I would not take all the extras on the entry hall and make that area dining and the other living. The front entry was poor and the back decent. I like how they incorporated the closets in the smaller bedrooms. We also see a utility room with laundry. Here is an L kitchen with an island I said no to that however. That refrigerator should have been placed better (maybe where the pantry is?). Mid America Mom