I really appreciate this new section. I think it will give us “novices” more confidence when scoring the SlowHome test, especially if we might be struggling with certain criteria on a plan. Frankly, until today I thought the straight stair concept would be the best choice in townhouse plans because the stairs are pushed to one side thus providing a larger area on all floors. But when you add a 4th floor of bedrooms as in T3 (Example 1) you really see the negative impact of straight stairs. Wow!
Is the floorplan of 968 Queen West (Example 3) fairly common among townhouses? It reminds me more of an apartment because of the windows being only on 1 side. The placement of the center stair would work well even if you had multiple stories in the plan.
The center stair in Cobblestone (Example 2) would not work if the kitchen area had no windows. You could remove the powder room and have an open staircase design (metal and glass fabrication) which would allow the illusion of connection between the kitchen and living area. I think that could have a unique architectural impact on the space.

[img]stairidea.jpg[/img]

Good Morning,

Thanks, John, for the focus on stairs. Information like this really helps when evaluating a plan.

I, too, was thinking, like Molly K. that a straight stair at the side makes the most sense, but only because every narrow lot house I have been in has the same layout. Your discussion points out the potential weakness in this basic design, especially as one goes upstairs.

Yesterday I was thinking that the stairs should be at the back of the townhouse, and I think your third example with the return stair at the back corner is the most successful solution.

I was wondering, too, about a straight stair along the back wall, as per my quick sketch. I think this could work, and if it were open then you could have windows and doors giving access to the outside on most, if not all, levels.

I hesitate to bring the following up, but what about a spiral staircase? In no way my fave, and it must be a real pain to move furniture up and down, but it does offer a relatively small footprint.

Comment: The units are oriented on a north-south axis and have exposure to both directions. Adjacent buildings to the north shade the patio and living room. The street to the south can be seen from the study, dining area and master. In addition, a terrace off the master provides a private outdoor space. An interesting use of stairs is required to access all four floors in this split level design. From the entry you can go down into the study or up to the living room. Going through the living room to the other side of the unit and up a small flight of stairs you enter the kitchen/dining area. From there, it is up to the bedroom level and another back stair to the top floor. I think everything goes well until the top floor where you have to walk down a hall to get to the master located at the front of the building. The unit lost points for the shaded outdoor living space and the awkward master bathroom which is entered via a closet. Excellent storage and laundry facilities are provided. Parking is available in a car stacker located off a lane to the east or on the street. The location is undeniably one of the best in Toronto and is an infill project on the site of an old University of Toronto drinking establishment ensuring a sordid history of bad behavior and tall tales. The building provides essential green features.

Project Name: Gallery Loft Towns – Center Unit

Size: 2100 sq ft

Project Address: Toronto

Project URL: http://gallerylofttowns.com/GLT%20floorplan_center_06.05.08_s.pdf

Slow Home Test Score: 18

Comment: Developer Sentex homes.

I admire them for trying new construction, infill, to look like it fits in with the neighborhood, victoriana. Issue is I would have done bigger windows at least on the back of the unit which is NOT street facing. I am giving them a YES on the context point but I am not sure if this is mainly on parliament or Winchester. Parliment runs north/south and the other east/west.

The main entry is to a landing and so is the garage entry :( . The baths and bedrooms work though on the larger size, the master shower has a seat which is a nice touch. The placement of the kitchen in the center of the unit allows the living spaces to enjoy this light. This plan suffers from too many living spaces, a recreation room on the ground floor then a family room and living room on the main floor. Getting into the garage may cause premature gray hair.
Good try but take a look at end unit in my next post.

Project Name: Cabbagetown Mews

Size: 2165- Cabbagetown

Project Address: 541 Parliament Toronto ON

Project URL: http://www.cabbagetownmews.com/cabbage_floorplans.html

Slow Home Test Score: 15

Comment: Take a look at the rendering… they are trying to make this unit look like a store with living above. http://www.cabbagetownmews.com/

** I had hopes for that wonderful bump out window on the second floor but was SO disappointed. MAIN ISSUE IS the STAIRS in this design *** I have not looked at our talk on stairs today but looking at this I can tell it fails. They could have done better. What would that be? Be interested in what you think.

Moving on ..
The entry is into the narrow bottom landing that is shared with the garage – the doors would whack into each other! I think you are supposed to put your coat in the closet on the main level. What I do like is the great room on this floor. The windows (4)and size (14 by 29). The kitchen has a L, and ignoring that angled cabinent, it is adequate but not designed well (the fridge should not be behind the peninsula). The labeled dining space is horrible with all the circulation- just a large hallway. No bath here- you have to hike up the stairs (organization!). The baths on the second floor are fine though in the master I would have switched the toilet with the tub. The second bedroom is 11 by 8. I will forgive them for the 8 since we have to deal with stairs and the hallway (at least 6). They should have had a better landing space at that rooftop. I hope there is a glass door!

On the ground floor is this wonderful open work space. Windows and entry to the main street. Back stair to the living space. No’s are organization, dining, entry.

Project Name: Cabbagetown Mews

Size: 1748 PLUS !! Victoria

Project Address: 541 Parliament Toronto ON

Project URL: http://www.cabbagetownmews.com/vic_floorplans.html

Slow Home Test Score: 14

MollyK,

Thanks for your comments – you are right about the potential for a long hallway on one side or the other. I didn’t think it through completely, but here is what I was thinking …

I was thinking the corridor of movement from one flight to the next would exist just in front of the stairs, therefore the staircase and walking space is still limited to the back and would take up about 7 feet or so. I was also thinking of a single living space per floor, thus eliminating corridors. However that is, also, not too realistic.

My “plan” is about 20 feet wide, so the long corridor you suggest (and I am not disagreeing) could be somewhat generous in width and still allow good-sized rooms, and with one room taking up the full width of the house the corridor wouldn’t go the entire way from back to front.

Further, the corridor could be filled with art and music, and the top floor could have a skylight, aaah … it need not be a nasty dark long corridor full of cobwebs and unpleasant smells.

Comment: Walkscore – 68/100

Project Name: Knightsbridge Homes – Kingsbridge

Size: 1730 sq. ft.

Project Address: 2-32 Beachell St Toronto, ON

Project URL: http://www.conservatorygroup.com/knightsbridge_kingsbridgeflp.html

Slow Home Test Score: 6

John,
Your discussion of staircases is a nice follow-up to Murray’s observations, and it’s also central to the townhouse design. I’m wondering if an L-shaped staircase is considered often. I lived in a farmhouse that used this design (presumeably so that the door could be closed to the second floor, retaining heat downstairs in winter). It allows the designer to tuck the stairs into the corner and to change the direction of the run, much as the U-shaped return does.

(BTW, I too enjoyed Carina’s post last Tuesday. Paul Cha’s discussion of the design process referenced many literary terms –narrative, point of view and editing– which I found particularly interesting.)

MAM – I liked your River City submission yesterday. Very resourceful finding the floor plans as they are not available on the River City site.

While I was somewhat disappointed by the townhouse layouts, the project is notable for its location in the West Don Lands on the Toronto waterfront and as phase one of new development there. Saucier + Perrotte and ZAS are the designers and architects for this project. To see more of this development go to the following site – http://rivercitytoronto.com

Comment: I was generous with this one, imagining that the formal living room could be best used as a study / selecting a site from the plan with a west facing front (east facing back) / assuming that the siteplan does in fact show a decent outdoor space (though it isn’t shown in the plan). Overall though, this unit is much much better than the one in Ajax.

Project Name: Stonecrest in Oshawa – Onyx

Size: 1985 sq ft

Project Address: 1300-1388 Livesey Dr Oshawa, ON

Project URL: http://www.greatgulfhomes.com/pdf/os1/OS_5_phase1.pdf

Slow Home Test Score: 16

Comment:

Project Name: Cedar Gardens – Oak

Size: 1238 sq ft

Project Address: 31-99 Cedarcroft Blvd Toronto, ON

Project URL: http://www.conservatorygroup.com/cedar_oakflp.html

Slow Home Test Score: 9

Thanks Brad- I stumbled on what I had (probably a realtor did that) and that was it. I was approved for access today for that site so I will take a look.

*John and Matthew I am thinking about organization.

Comment: While the walkscore was 50/100, I gave the project a yes because I noticed that the walkscore was not including transit data. Loblaws and the Bayview Metro station are only 2 blocks south of this project. The site is also opposite a park, and 8 blocks from North York City Centre – jobs and evening activities.
My biggest reservations about this project (which from the website looks pretty interesting) are its overall depth and the strange jogs that lead to a lot of questionable wasted space in several rooms. I can’t see why with such a long unit and no building above (unlike the multi-story complexes) the design doesn’t try to use skylighting. Although it’s a very large unit, I’m not sure if I’d classify it (and subsequently assess it) as a “large house”.
Some spaces are quite nice, such as the way the kitchen relates to the dining room with the island/peninsula. Other aspects could be really great if they were used to enhance accessibility – see the elevator you take between floors but not to answer the front door!
Overall, this project is undercooked and needs to be rethought a bit to address the issues.

Project Name: Linea on Bayview – The Arbor

Size: 2730 sq ft

Project Address: 2958 Bayview Ave Toronto, ON

Project URL: http://www.lineaonbayview.com/pdf/floorplans/theArbor.pdf

Slow Home Test Score: 14

Alejandro etc al. I was looking at the corner unit #18 in the Luna LTD… maybe not even worthy of a post?

It is lofted overlooking the living space and guess what room looks over it? THE BATHROOM! LMAO.

Comment:

Project Name: Strawberry Fields @ South Fields: T3 Wedgewood

Size: 1630 sq ft

Project Address: 12515 Kennedy Rd Caledon, ON

Project URL: http://www.monarchgroup.net/Community.aspx?CommunityID=398

Slow Home Test Score: 8

Comment: Walkscore – 77
Same developer as the atrocious unit that Mid America Mom posted yesterday (Bliss).
Courtyard-facing (SE) unit.
No environmental performance.

Project Name: Liberty Village – Plan A

Size: 730 sq ft

Project Address: 40-58 E Liberty St Toronto, ON

Project URL: http://www.liveinliberty.com/townhomes/floorplans/planA.pdf

Slow Home Test Score: 16

Comment: Some wacky angles, very very narrow living/dining room. What’s up with the staircases??? Is this an Escher painting (or a Piranesi)?

Project Name: High Grove – The Richmond

Size: 1888 sq ft

Project Address: 2582-2598 Haines Rd Mississauga, ON

Project URL: http://www.vandyk.com/highgrove/pdfs/TheRichmond2009.pdf

Slow Home Test Score: 10

MollyK,
I agree that Paul Cha’s enthusiasm for conferring with his clients was great to see. It seems to me that by trying to know how his clients FEEL their space shows another level of creativity on his part, much like imagining a character in writing (but in his case it truly does matter!).

Comment: Fast House

Project Name: Westown Townhomes: T3

Size: 1598 sq ft

Project Address: 2320-2398 Sheppard Ave W Toronto, ON

Project URL: http://www.hr-newhomes.com/westown/images/Townhomes/1598.pdf

Slow Home Test Score: 7

Comment: Ooh, an elevator. Walkscore says 53/100, This is probably good considering where it is, but I wonder about where you work (maybe you don’t).

Project Name: Riverside Village – Floorplan KLMNOP

Size: 2550 sq ft

Project Address: 8301-8681 Kipling Ave, Vaughan, ON

Project URL: http://www.riversidevillage.ca/floorplans/Riverside_FloorplanKLMNOPelevator.pdf

Slow Home Test Score: 13

Comment: So so. walkscore is 45/100.

Project Name: Parkview Trail – Block H Middle-Units (Hampton)

Size: 2050 sq ft

Project Address: 1668-1872 Burnhamthorpe Rd E, Mississauga, ON

Project URL: http://www.dunparhomes.com/communities/parkviewtrail/floorplans/ParkView_H_mid.pdf

Slow Home Test Score: 13

Comment: Main level has minor issues, second level is cruddy, lots of little jogs here and there creating wasted space AND tight spots. No laundry room / or washer/dryer isn’t included…

Project Name: Botany Hill – Daffodil 2

Size: 1913 sq ft

Project Address: 430 Orton Park Rd, Toronto, ON

Project URL: http://www.newinhomes.com/ontario/scarborough-development-2725/floorplans-15955.html

Slow Home Test Score: 6

Comment: What’s a SoHo? From what I can tell, nomatter what you call it, that’s a terrible space to be in – so far from any light or ventilation. Bedrooms are weird on the second level with a long corridor to walk through (and try to dress in…) to get to the master, and a stupid shape to bed 2 that would be awkward to walk into cuz the bed would be right there (unless you want like to come home and just fall though the door and land on your bed). The main floor bedroom is HORRIBLE. Can’t believe that this is even possible. And another thing, there are too many bathrooms in this unit. The powder room should be a 3 piece, and the third bathroom in the corner should be nixed. On the plus side, there’s a decent kitchen, dining and living space…

Project Name: Concord CiryPlace, Panorama – Suite G03

Size: 1748 sq ft

Project Address: 23 Spadina Ave Toronto, ON

Project URL: http://www.cityplace.ca/panorama/

Slow Home Test Score: 11

Comment: Walkscore – 68/100
This unit has the nicest laundry I’ve ever seen!
I considered the family room for use as a study (a purpose which would be very well suited to that space). Don’t like the master-suite-en-gross, I think it’s excessive.

Project Name: Forest of Eden – The McIntosh 2

Size: 2553 sq ft

Project Address: 2069-2099 Lushes Ave, Mississauga, ON

Project URL: http://www.homebuyers.com/search/floorplanpopup.jsp?modelID=19952&floorID=1&ext=1

Slow Home Test Score: 10

Comment: To quote Catherine, “wah wah (trumpet)”

Project Name: Thornberry Woods, Model 1906

Size: 1906 sq ft

Project Address: 9490-9594 Dufferin St Vaughan, ON

Project URL: http://www.hr-newhomes.com/thornberrywoods/ModelDetails.aspx?Community=14&Series=78&Model=229

Slow Home Test Score: 4

COMMENTS ON the STAIRS.

Feedback first- Thanks for showing us three plans and talking through them. John you asked a series of questions at the end of the video. In the future you may want to think of being the first to comment and reiterate those questions.

What do I think about the three plans? I tend to think that a traditional townhouse is one with light in front and back with narrow width and long length (like plan 1). Plan 3, with windows on one side, makes me think LOFT. When I play with designs on paper I do not do a loft type.

-A switchback could work in a narrow Plan 1. How about in the middle? How wide is the unit? Is there enough space if we put it in the same location as plan 2 (for a 8 foot ceiling I think you need at least a space of 11 by 6 that includes circulation in front)? Are you willing to give up the openness and light on that first floor? Open floor plans are popular and I like being able to see the action in the other during a party, keeping an eye on kids, maybe view the TV with the Olympics (Go USA!). Putting it at the back near a wall of windows, which we tend to put a premium on, does not make much sense. -The second plan could be more open with Molly’s suggestion. Issues I have is with the winder on top. These, from experience, can be dangerous as we tend to stay on the inner narrow toe part. Some building codes are strict with usage of these. Without the winder you could not put a straight stair as the width of the unit is probably not enough (the unit would need to be at least 17). A switchback would work but then we would need to figure out where to put the bath. Maybe an L like Terri cited is possible but then going another story with those requires a width you may not be able to give- The third plan you cited all the space that is in front due to the switchback. That is alluring.

Most of the towns we have seen have a straight stair and of the narrow variety. The need to keep an open first floor seems to be a sacrifice the architect is willing to make. If willing to accept an open BUT divided dining and living space you have a few choices. A middle switchback or straight stair that is open and not walled. If they keep the straight stair on the outside wall I feel that space next to it is a great place to think of putting an efficient U or double galley kitchen with minimal upper cabinets confined to an outside wall. Light passes through it and the openness is retained.

What works for a townhome- it differs on the footprint (wide or long?) and the window placement (back and front, just front, two adjoining sides).

Re: the townhouse

When I think of a “townhouse” I think of a narrow-lot house; one “unit” within a set of similar residences confined by a demarcated “lot”. – possibly a city block, or some such other arbitrarily-defined space. High-density, urban living (in no way a bad thing) will dictate that a townhouse has multiple storeys.

In one sense a townhouse is a great feat of SlowHome organization – “like spaces are grouped together “(full marks). Again, the multi-storey aspect of a townhouse dictates that multiple floors can allow for an obvious and practical separation of public and private space and usage: public spaces on the lower level/s and private space and usage on upper levels: one floor per usage of space.

“Principal rooms having a good connection to the outdoors” – yes, all well and good, but, possibly, rarely attainable.

“Minimum number of hallways” – the multiple flights of stairs dictate a “maximum” number of hallways for circulation. Again with the stairs (absolutely necessary, can’t be denied, not advocating bungalow living (more on that later)) although absolutely necessary are also a necessary evil. I no more want to climb three flights of stairs to pick up my keys that I left on my bedside table than fly to the moon! Yesterday I spoke of redundancy – I was thinking of bathrooms specifically, but what about eyeglasses and house-keys and computers. Do I need one set for each floor of the house?! On that note, what about our supposedly aging population? – Zimmer frames and wheelchairs do not negotiate staircases all that effectively.

In one sense a townhouse takes all the best SlowHome organizational features of the afore-mentioned, well-designed, bungalow and stacks them vertically. But, it is the verticality of the equation that is problematic. It necessitates a redundancy of services (bathrooms, eyeglasses, computers, etc), and so, I think that apartment living is a much more practical solution (only one flight of stairs, or even better, an elevator! among other things).

But, apparently, apartments don’t have quite the cachet of a townhouse. (It would be interesting to delve into the history of the townhouse and the history of the apartment). Apartments/lofts allow for single-floor living but, unfortunately, reek of multiple-family living. This attitude is some medieval hangover from another century’s definition of what is to be “desired” and, therefore, to be attained, in one’s life. That one cannot afford and/or attain that thing which one so desperately desires leads to a mockery of what is a “house”. In a modern (and sometimes even contemporary vernacular, as witnessed by the submissions in this week of discovery) the architect/designer mimics those icons of a what-is-a-house; gables, porches, columns, etc. “curbside appeal” – a Thomas Kincade-like reality. The contemporary manifestation is not just a cookie-cutter debacle of good design, but a gingerbread-cookie house of Hansel’s and Gretel’s worst nightmare!