11/03/10 – Toronto – Large Single Family >2500 sqft

MollyK

Comments on Westown floorplan,
1. use of previously developed land has to be the best feature of this home.
2. placement of kitchen as the cental “hub” between other living areas. It is the best functional feature in the house.
3. excellent use of ground floor space. Kudos for actually defining and finishing the space as useful family areas.
In my opinion, the garage is the key to the success of the floorplan. What a pleasant surprise to see it has it’s own dedicated space. However, it is the exception to the rule of garage placement in the homes we are scoring. That is a sad commentary on the state of affairs for large homes in GTA.
The entry is the worst feature of the home. But my main problem (which has become a pet peeve) is the placement of the patio door in the breakfast area. Maneuvering around an empty table, especially from the kitchen when you may be carrying food, is hard enough. Maneuvering around a table with chairs pulled out is even worse! I have found that the patio door works best when placed either between the breakfast area and family room OR totally in the family room. Furniture used in family rooms have a distinct front and back which, when properly arranged, act as a natural circulation path to the patio door. Tables with chairs aren’t circulation friendly.
Overall, the room layout on all floors is nice. Nothing supersized, no colliding geometry, scores well on the SlowHome test, etc. It certainly is one of the best…but compared to what? In my opinion it doesn’t have a WOW factor. It is still narrow from front to back and void of windows in several areas. We aren’t sure of the amount of outdoor space and can say with some certainty that it sits close to neighboring houses.
It would be nice to see a floorplan like this on a wider lot. We might see some of the problems (poor entry, lack of windows, etc.) go away.

BradW

The entry from the garage through the rec room is weak. The dining/living room is a compromise. I would not have scored a point for dining. I do not like the kitchen. In particular, the island is awkward. Finally, the location is not as nice as you may think. Aside the from the location of the toilet in the master ensuite, I thought the upstairs was well done.

MollyK

BradW
I thought we were supposed to give 3 POSITIVE things about the floorplan. Only 1 positive from your post. Come on Brad…I was able to squeeze out 3 things (barely). You mention things I saw too, but decided not to discuss…I figured someone would say I was being a “downer”.
Frankly, beyond the loft/condo category I’ve been depressed with Toronto. And I mean that not as an insult but as a sincere diasppointment that things weren’t better. I’m already in Dallas…at least it’s warmer.

Terri

I’m not willing to give this house kudos just because it’s built on reclaimed brown land (is that what you said, John?). It looks like this neighbourhood is amid a commercial area (a lot of roofs and concrete), near to the 400 Hwy. which couldn’t be that nice for outdoor living. I’m curious to know why Brad says it’s not so great…

But aside from that factor in this location, last week we were saying that we have to consider it not so bad (aka Slow) when homes are in satellite communities where much of what the homeowner needs is within walking location, and if they need to commute there are good options close by. Now this week we’re throwing environmental concerns out the window just because this home is on reclaimed land? It seems like we’ve gone back on last week’s considered response to the difficulty of building a new home in the GTO.
I found something within Richmond Hill, the next burough north from here that while not perfect, was at least trying to follow an Energy Star commitment, and the floorplan was no worse than this one (Brad points out the major flaws).
Well, enough of my complaining! I’ll be good now and choose three positive features:
1. Garage integrated under home.
2. Nice landing upstairs–central and open; although it creates a rather wide and long hallway into the master suite, maybe this is not such a bad feature, allowing another level of privacy to its occupants.
3. Breakfast/kitchen/family configuration seems pretty good, with each having a separate space yet still somewhat open to one another.

Terri

Sorry, I keep writing GTO when it’s GTA…GTO–talk about fast!

MollyK

Terri,
Isn’t a GTO a car?…Don’t you think any plan that is devoid of windows on an entire side should raise an eyebrow? Especially, if the house is over 2500 square feet!

Terri

MollyK,
Yes, I guess I was showing my age when I mentioned the car…there’s an old Beach Boys tune about “my little GTO”–I’m not THAT old but my sister was old enough to listen to them.
So…I see you what you mean about the lack of windows on the sides. I’m guessing these units will be closely side-by-side–what else? I did think the window in the staircase would make the upstairs landing a little brighter though.

Terri

MollyK,
You mentioned going to Dallas already. Does that mean you’ve been searching for slow homes there? And if so, what do you forecast? It’s my feeling that it’s going to be difficult in all cities to find single family homes that fit the criteria of urban infill, energy conscious plus well-designed. It seems we can one or two but not all three. But maybe that’s the point. We’re searching and coming up empty, which only serves to reinforce what the Slow Home website is trying to do: bring awareness to this situation in North America.

MollyK

Terri,
Yes, in desperation I hopped a plane to Dallas and, if you like condo/loft/apartment living, you’ll be in heaven. Also, I’ve taken a peek at some large homesite developments and found larger acreage. (They say everything’s bigger in Texas.) BUT don’t get your hopes up just yet because I haven’t searched indepth and there isn’t much about Orientation or Environmental Performance on the websites. My hope is that we’ll have some better floorplans as a result of the larger lots…something more than glorified townhouses. I’ve actually found a few websites of architects and their projects but I can’t give away all my secrets. I will share with you that Walkscore.com offers some nice features to determine walkable areas. It will show a map of Dallas and highlight walkable areas from “most walkable” to “least walkable”. It should help you pin down better areas to search first.

BradW

Terri,

The location is fine – it is just not as walkable as indicated. There are plenty of things nearby but you would likely never walk to any of them. This is a suburban location consisting of a residential mix, strip malls, car dealers and low rise industrial units.

I just noticed that the location is near the Oakdale Golf Club – I may have judged this too harshly. And as for being negative, I guess I am so use to doing the WWWTH segments that is what I did. The home has to much stuff jammed onto the main floor – just not my style.

I have included a link to something a little more to my liking…
http://www.3east94.com/?gclid=CJSDmNOjwp8CFRMNDQodx15i3w

MollyK

Terri,
I wonder if we could find some better suburban communities if we searched some not-so-large cities. For example, in North Carolina there are large cities but not as large as the ones on the SlowHome tour. If I use my new-found sleuthing abilities and chose a city in my state would I find some slower suburban neighborhoods? Is it possible that the large metropolitan areas just don’t support the SlowHome philosophy in the single-family home category but smaller cities would?
It is something to think about and is easy to investigate (if there is free time.)

MollyK

BradW,
Glad to see the old BradW is back. 3East94…is that really one private residence? I want the lap pool and the wine cellar…do you think the owner would rent out the wine cellar to me? I don’t take up much room.
By the way, I know I’ve asked you this before but where do you find these homes? You must have an ‘in’ with someone in realty…or perhaps that someone is you? You are not obligated to answer my question…I’m just having a little fun.

Paul C

[img]1_1.jpg[/img][img]2.jpg[/img][img]3.jpg[/img][img]4.jpg[/img][img]5.jpg[/img]

What’s the adage? Location, location, location. Maybe it should be context, context, context?

There is a wealth of information that can be sourced online. I have clarified and posted an image (1) of the actual Westown parcel and from the City of Toronto’s online zoning mapping utility, a roughly dimensioned block (2) . I would also encourage a perusal of the builder’s website to view the virtual street tours for these homes. I have posted a couple of snapshots here (3)(4). So why did I go to this level of investigation?

Simply to demonstrate how important, in my opinion, the relationship of a home to its immediate context is. While the home “plan” works or can be made slower, can it really be considered a slow home if the environment/space that it creates outside the home is…questionable?

Consider, the main living floors of these homes are one storey removed from grade, the front yard is essentially non-existent, it’s a driveway (even more so where the road turns), the rear façades for the majority of the plans have virtually no articulation except for a small uncovered deck and if situated in a back to back situation (on the block that appears to be 56m deep including sidewalks, likely 25m per lot as opposed to the typical 30-34m deep lots) the resultant environment/space between the homes can be somewhat stark. The last image posted (5) demonstrates a typical newer Toronto suburb with two storey homes with little façade articulation, on likely deeper lots. The Westown homes will be three storey on shallower lots.

To me this home is just another example of how mass produced housing is designed in isolation of its setting, no consideration appears to be given on the impacts it has on its setting as there appears to be little attempt to “design” beyond the interior spaces of the home. Sorry…my rant for the quarter.

Jodi J

The three features which I feel are the most compelling about this plan include:
1) Garage location on the lower level –> enables development of principal living spaces on second floor to take up the full width of the lot (not constrained as most traditional plans are)
2) Circulation –> very clear, straightforward circulation axis through the plan (on both floors), not a lot of wasted space
3) Organization of the Spaces –> very clear relationships between spaces and their functions, proportions seem very reasonable, good connection between the various spaces, and the outdoors! Furniture placement would not be a challenge (very different from a number of other plans we’ve looked at over the course of the past few days)

BradW

Paul C – The unfortunate part is the images you posted are typical of what has and is being built in Toronto. Nice rant…

BradW

MollyK – No secret to finding these places…the New York apartment I found by accident when looking for stuff in LA. I liked it so I kept the link. It is an example of how a very large single family home allocates space to various functions. Notice there really is not much more here than in many 3000 sqft homes found in Toronto but the individual spaces are much bigger…as would be the purchase price and the tax bill. :)

MollyK

Paul C.,
Perhaps you would like a part-time job investigating the SlowHome submissions for accuracy? I can’t offer you one but I think you should have one. And please don’t apologize for your rant…which by definition was not a rant (to speak or write in an angry or violent manner). I would say your comments were more along the lines of…informative speech (written to provide interesting and useful information to increase the knowledge of your audience). Congratulations!!! You have provided additional proof that houses like Westown are at best glorified townhomes and at worst…an abomination of livable home design.
It has always been my belief that “context” will make or break the livable design of a house. Yes, you can find both a fast home or a slow home built on decent sized lots, but rarely will you find anything but fast homes on small lots, especially lots used in mass housing.

MollyK

BradW,
Someone might argue that a lap pool, wine cellar, 7 wood-burning fireplaces, and other luxuries in an 11,000+ sq. ft. townhouse does not fit the SlowHome criteria/philosophy. However, I admit the flow of the floorplan in the New York townhouse feels slower even though the house is obscenely large. Is it possible that the minimum square footage needed to create a “slow” home may be larger than we want to admit? Or maybe it has to do with the type of house we are designing? The townhouse design is tall and narrow, therefore more square footage is necessary to get the same livable feeling as that of, say, a single-family home of 3500 square feet spread out more uniformally across a wider area? Did that sentence make any sense? In other words, a townhouse is a different animal from a single-family home. Does it need different square footage to achieve the same livable environment?

Terri

BradW, I thought the neighbourhood mix for today’s Slow home didn’t look too great for walking, unless you like traffic whizzing past, of course. As for a golf course nearby…I know you golf so you won’t like me for saying this, but there are those that say golf courses are anything but green, typically using vast amounts of water and chemicals to maintain them. I’m just saying…;)

As for your 3East94th, I’m gobsmacked. Wow! Don’t you feel that some of those rooms are just a little too spacious? Take that bedroom, for example, it seems too empty to me. Almost cold. Maybe some warm bodies placed in those rooms would help. I can’t imagine what it’d be like to sleep in that kind of six-storey place. I’d need good security.

PaulC,
Thanks for posting those virtual drawings of today’s home. They present quite a different view. And that last one from Markham was just plain depressing to me. I can’t imagine paying so much money to live like that–looks like a compound or something to me.

MollyK,
Yes, I’m thinking that because space is premium in the urban centres, we won’t find many new single family homes within city limits. I know we’ve got better options in my city, where even if you live in a suburban part, you’re no more than 30-40mins by bus to the downtown core (less if driving). We have a couple of excellent biking networks that allow a biker to get from downtown to the outskirts in close to the same time as the bus.

Terri

When I said “outskirts” above, I meant a distance of 25-30 km.

Mid America Mom

Music is always nice. One of my favorites is their version of The Little Old Lady From Pasadena. I just cannot help but laugh with that mental image. I would love to be her when I “grow up” ;)

Things to like on the home:
Circulation

Bedrooms

I like the tuck under garage (left my heart in san francisco- the marina style home. this lists the typical floor plan- http://www.sanfranciscomarinarealestate.com/what-is-a-san-francisco-marina-style-home.html)

Terri

M.A.M.,
Just for the record (pun intended) “Little Old Lady from Pasadena” was a Jan and Dean hit (my sister had that one too). Same kind of surfin’ music. I couldn’t find your Marina Style Home plan, only a description.

Mid America Mom

Jan and Dean lets see… Dead’s man curve. HA! Now if we could say dead man’s angle that would be for John ;)

Sorry the link on that style did not work in the parentheses. Here it is – http://www.sanfranciscomarinarealestate.com/what-is-a-san-francisco-marina-style-home.html

Terri

Hi, M.A.M.,
Tee hee–Dead Man’s Angle–I like it. The angle has been called the “bane of John’s existence” before. His aversion is legendary on this blog, though I hadn’t heard the “bridge of the Enterprise” remark until he and Matthew started discussing the plans together. His hatred seems to run deep!

Thanks for re-posting that link to the Marina Style Homes. I do like the efficiency of that floorplan. Can’t mess with that!

Slow Home Test – Part 2 ( video )

Resources

About

Other Info

We Accept