Evaluating Single Family Homes In Vancouver

Posted on: July 19th, 2010 | 30 Comments

This is Day 181 of the Slow Home Project and we need you to join us in our quest to evaluate the design quality of houses in nine North American cities in nine months.

It’s Monday, July 19, 2010 on the Slow Home site and today we are doing a “What’s Wrong With This House?” exercise. The floor plan we have chosen is the “Arbutus” which is a 2,700 sq ft home with 4 bedrooms, 2.5 baths and a double attached front drive garage. It is located on the “Birchwood Estates” development in Coquitlam, which is about 30 minutes from downtown Vancouver.

We need you to study the floor plans of this house and use the Slow Home Test to see how well (or how badly) it is designed. Post your Slow Home Test score to the site as well as your comments as to what you think is the worst thing about this plan.

When you are ready, click on the player below to see how John and Matthew have scored this project!

To see John and Matthew’s Slow Home Test score for the “Arbutus”, click on the link below.

This is our last week in beautiful Vancouver, but do you think that we will find any “Slow” single family house projects in this city of 2.5 million people? We are still holding out hope that we will find at least one! We need everyone to look as hard as they can!

We look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow for another “Which House Should I Buy?” episode where we will be comparing two single family homes from the Vancouver area to see which would be the best real estate purchase!

nicole

Score of 6
1- Location 0
2- Environmental Performance 0
3- Siting 0
4- Organization 0
5- Entry 1
6- Indoor Living 1
7- Outdoor Living 1
8- Kitchen 0
9- Dining 1
10- Bedrooms 0
11- Bathrooms 1
12- Study 1
13- Laundry 0
14- Parking 0
_lots of circulation of the 2nd floor
_angular walls on the 2nd floor = wasted space
_entry to bedrooms / closet location creates another corridor
_not much space for storage in 2nd floor washroom
_laundry space shared with corridor to garage (and very narrow)
_garage does not have 2’ on either side of the car doors
Mid America Mom

Hi-

Are we going to post which projects have been winning awards? So far not in Vancouver… actually I cannot the last time we were told the results of voting.

Thanks!
Mid America Mom
Mid America Mom

I awarded them the environment points due to being built to the Built Green BC program. This is found here: http://www.wallmark.ca/why_green.php

******I assume this program is green enough for slow home? ****

Location 0
Enviro 3 built green bc program
Siting 0
Org 0 that upstairs is just not well done.
Entry 0 back entry cramped with laundry
Liv 1
Outdoor Liv 1 LOVE we see a deck and nice sized.
Kitchen 0 Weird island and then a corner pantry
Dine 1
Bed 0 The master bedroom angles that extend to unusable closet space. Entry into two bedrooms goes into the side of a closet. With all that wasted space upstairs they should have created better entries at least.
Bath 1 The master is a good size. They made the vanities large enough for two bowls but not too large
Study 1 I like the placement in the plan.
Laundry 0 cramped with entry
Parking 1

******************************************************
I decided to look to their other plans. Why? Depending on the builder you may be able to ask them to modify the plan you like. This builder does custom work so I suspect they may be able to accommodate changes. I would look at their other floorplans first to see if they accomplished a better kitchen and entry/laundry.

The kitchen in their Chelsea plan is better. This is a L shape with island. This island needs work (what is it with angles?) but I would take this over the Arbutus’. http://www.wallmark.ca/communities_plandetail.php?com=3&mod=27

They did create a slow back entry and laundry combination room in their Laurier plan. It takes up the back of the garage which I think is better than a drop into family or dining space AND if this is wide enough (which this is) there is plenty of room for family stuff – http://www.wallmark.ca/communities_plandetail.php?com=3&mod=30

Mid America Mom
Terri

I gave this house 7/20. I gave the siting points, because it looks like there is “green” space around the development; a home with the back yard facing south would be okay too.
Otherwise, my marks match nicole and M.A.M., except for bathrooms. That supersized master bathroom with the tiny shower is not slow.

I think the worst thing is the kitchen–totally unworkable and practically no useful counter space. But what I hate even more are those two-storey living spaces.

BTW, this development would not be anywhere close to 30 minutes from downtown Vancouver. It would take at least 10 minutes to get to the Barnet Hwy. junction in Port Moody and then it’s a good 20 to East Burnaby and from there into Vancouver…at least another 25, depending on traffic. There are plans for SkyTrain to come out this far eventually (not up the mountain where this development is, of course), but for now it’s about 20-minute drive away (with congestion, probably longer). There’s a train that travels into downtown right now, but I don’t know how far the station is from here.
Grace Coulter

Arbutus
-overall I think the house is depicted through the pictures as being open and bright but the house seems huge….

0/ 3 location – it looks like it is surrounded by green but it seems to be very auto dependant
0/ 3 enviro performance- I searched through the website and there were no precise details of green design just affiliations with sustainable groups so i don’t think the point should be awarded.
0/2 siting – within the detailed site on the website if you are on an outer unit then you have nice green space around but the inner units aren’t backing onto anything.
0/2 organization – I do not think the upstairs works at all in this house. While like spaces are grouped together the circulation is ridiculous. The angles in the hallways are consuming way too much space. I guess on the flip side they do this in order to create an outdoor connection and good window in each bedroom but these points can go to the bedroom category
1/1 entry – the closet creates a weird little angle at the front but I think this is still okay. I am a fan of using a different type of floor material, wall treatment, etc. in order to define spaces. I don’t think every room needs to be defined by walls. You can do amazing things by creating different qualities of light or using materials and have the same result of a different space. In the entry it is possible the tile helps to do this.
1/1 indoor living – living space is fine, focal points
1/1 outdoor living – big outdoor living space
0/1 kitchen – i never like these odd angle islands. The kitchen seems weird
.5/1 dining – I don’t think you need to increase the footprint in order to have two dining spaces. It seems excessive so I am giving half points because both spaces are fine but only one should be sufficient.
.5/1 bedrooms – the master is odd while the others are fine. I also very much dislike the weird balcony into the indoor space. This is a waste of resources.
1/1 bathrooms- these seem adequate
1/1 study
0/1 laundry-this is a hallway not a laundry.
1/1 parking – Fine
Overall the score was 7. I was not partial to this house. I have a hard time with spaces like this because on the surface they meet the basic requirements but the total package is weak. Even spaces I do score because they meet the slowhome requirements are just barely there. Hopefully there are some great single family homes out there to examine throughout this week because I am starting to get the impression that single family homes that are slow are few and far between and I expected more out of Van.
Grace Coulter

Terri thanks for the post on the transit. Sometimes the sites can be so misleading (what they meant was 30 min..in the middle of summer, with dry weather, with no construction, at 3am, speeding…. lol)
nicole

Mid America Mom got me thinking about ‘green’…

Evaluating ‘greenness’ is not an easy task. As consumers we must be aware of ‘greenwash’, where mfr’s claim to have ‘green’ incentives.
There is a company in Edmonton, EcoAmmo that has set out to do such a thing. http://www.ecoammo.com/ They provide independent research / analysis of product + materials for the construction industry.
One must look at initial cost, life cycle cost, installation procedures and materials, maintenance, recycleability, (contents of pre or post consumer material), manufacturing process, transportation, just to name a few.
John + Matthew, what is your ‘green’ criteria for 3 points?
Terri

I looked up the West Coast Express train that goes from Mission to downtown Vancouver, and it takes 30 minutes from the Coquitlam station,where car parking is available. I think this station is about a 10-minute drive from the Birchwood Estates. There’s also a local bus that comes through–about 5-minute walk from Birchwood neighbourhood, so this would probably take up more time.

For anyone doing research on new house locations throughout Greater Vancouver, the overall transit (bus, SkyTrain, train, Seabus) map can be seen at this link:
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/maps/transit%20system%20maps/entire_system_map_effective_21june2010.ashx
Kyle B

1. Location = 0
2. Environmental Performance = 0
3. Siting = 1
4. Organization = 0
5. Entry = 1
6. Indoor Living = 1
7. Outdoor Living = 1
8. Kitchen = 0
9. Dining = 1
10. Bedrooms = 1
11. Bathrooms = 0
12. Study = 1
13. Laundry = 0
14. Parking = 1

Total Score = 8

A few minor things:
The laundry room is inappropriately placed right next to the garage entrance. Space here is very limited.
Kitchen island shape, I think, will make for awkward workability.
Future play room will be good and dark!
The entry coat closet unnecessarily intrudes into the garage space.

The worst thing for me is the master bedroom bathroom and closet. First, the door swing for the bathroom overlaps the door swing for the toilet. That will most definitely be frustrating. Second, why do you have to walk through the bathroom to get to the closet. This is poor organization at its finest.
Amanda

Location 0
Enviro 0
Siting 2
Org 0- bad circulation
Entry 0- back entry cramped with laundry
Liv 1
Outdoor Liv 1
Kitchen 0- Poorly designed work space
Dinning 1
Bed 0- The master bedroom is at odd angles that extend to the closet and create wasted space. There is also wasted space due to the hallway to get in and out of the other two bedrooms.
Bath 1
Study 1
Laundry 0 cramped with entry
Parking 1
Total: 8 = Moderately Fast
____________________________________________________
The worst part about this house is the organization. The upper level in particular because the layout creates lost of circulation and wasted space. Also the kitchen and laundry area are badly design making living difficult. I’m not sure if the basement will be used or whether it is developed, but the living area and bathroom are good however I don’t like the back area as a play room because there are no windows, its better as a storage area.

The best feature was the living and dining space.
Grace Coulter

Nicole –
I am also interested in the criteria for sustainability. I have read a few interesting articles concerning “green washing” particularly when it comes to LEED. LEED is great (I do think it is doing awesome things for sustainable design) but it is not the ultimate standard, just seems to be the most convenient one at the moment. Sustainability should not be determined merely by a checklist and a certification. I don’t think we do that on this site but it is something to keep in mind as we look at projects. I know some architects and builders are choosing to opt out of doing LEED because they can go beyond its standards and don’t feel the cost is worth it. I think sustainability in a slow home is huge as I have said before but it can be tricky to determine….clarification would be great!
Mid America Mom

Nicole what a slow home enthusiast you are today!

Thanks for posting so many single family plans, rating this home, and the link to the company in Edmonton.

So far we put a stamp of slow home environment approval in LEED certified (and seeking – wouldn’t you agree MollyK / Terri? ). Good question on green.

Mid America Mom
sdokter

1. Location = 1/3 – Car/Transit dependable
2. Environmental Performance = 1/3
3. Siting = 2/3
4. Organization 2/2 – I really like the organizational layout of the entire house. The kitchen, dining room, and great room have an excellent amount of space. I personally enjoy the two openings on the top floor.
5. Entry = 1/1 – Has a large closet and is very spacious.
6. Indoor Living = 1/1
7. Outdoor Living = 1/1 – Three outdoor decks provide for excellent outdoor living
8. Kitchen = 0/1 – I find it too cramped between island and counter in kitchen
9. Dining = 1/1
10. Bedrooms = 1/1 – like the en-suite feature for the master bedroom
11. Bathrooms = 0/1 – I don’t like the position of the main floor bathroom. It is too close to the entrance.
12. Study = 0/1 – no study
13. Laundry = 0/1 – like the position of the washer/dryer. Out of the way and maintains space between living and dining room
14. Parking = 1/1

Total Score = 12/20

The bad qualities I recognized were the lack of space between the island and counter in the kitchen. There is plenty of extra space beyond the island that was not being used. Furthermore, I found the position of the main floor bathroom odd. It was too close to the main entrance and should have been placed somewhere else.
JPod

1.Location – 0: If you don’t have a vehicle in this development, you’ll never be able to get around. It is completely vehicle dependent.
2.Environmental Performance – 2: (thanks to MIM for the info)
3.Siting – 1: Good
4.Organization – 0: On the surface it seems OK, but the upper level with the bedrooms is a mess, and downstairs there is a lot of wasted space.
5.Entry – 1: Good, nice space, enough room for people to take off their shoes and hang their coats.
6.Indoor Living – 1: Decent
7.Outdoor Living – 1: Good, nice sized deck. Good for furniture placement and entertainment.
8.Kitchen – 0.5: This isn’t a great kitchen, but it’s not a bad kitchen either.
9.Dining – 1: Decent dining space.
10.Bedrooms: 0 – The bedrooms seem really small. The master bedroom has odd angles and the closet also has awkward angles, not suitable for storage and hanging clothing.
11.Bathrooms – 0.5: The master bath has a lot of wasted space; the others seem OK though.
12.Study – 1: Nice natural light (assuming that the study would go into the space labeled “Den”) decent size.
13.Laundry – 0: Having a utility closet like that in the entry is odd. If someone came to the door, or you had company, and you were running a load of laundry, they’d hear it running and beeping when it was finished.
14.Parking – 1: The garage and driveway leave plenty of space for parking.

Total = 8
Terri

M.A.M.,
I feel that LEED is good enough for the Environmental points. It seems to be a recognized benchmark for most of the building industry as well. As we’ve seen, not that many places adhere to this standard, so if we find it, we feel hope and are happy to give the points–at least I am!
I’m not sure if Green BC comes as close to LEED as the Slow Home dictates would like. It’s halfway there maybe (water conservation and energy efficient building envelope and appliances).
Tara

Location 0 – eep on the walkscore
Environment 0 – I didn’t give it the points because this information is not easy to find on the website and therefore is not one of their primary considerations
Siting 2 – looks like it would be a nice location to live in and lots are generous
Organization 1 – layout of spaces make sense, ciruclation space is minimal, especially consideirng the size of the house
Entry 0 – front entry is nice, back entry not so much.
Indoor Living 0 – almost a bit too large to furnish properly and fully, especially considering the large opening into the kitchen and the placement of the fireplace
Outdoor Living 1 – nice deck
Kitchen 1 – work triangle is managable which is nice because of the substantial size of the kitchen.
Dining 1 – I don’t mind the dual eating spaces for this house and I think they are well placed in the plan
Bedrooms 0 – master is huge compared to the other bedrooms, has an awkward angle for entry, and I don’t like that the closet can only be accessed from the bathroom.
Bathrooms 1 – bathrooms are okay for me, master is not as crazy as some
Study 1 – nice location in plan!
Laundry 0 – mudroom laundry without enough space
Parking 1 – I like that the garage does not dominate the entire front facade of the house.

9/20 – not a badly designed plan over all. consideirng the size and price tag (around a million) i think the desgin is a lot less extravagent and more slow than it could have been
MollyK

Good afternoon everyone,

My answer to MAM…yes, LEED sets the standard for environmental performance. However, large homes are rarely good in the environmental performance area. Here is some information to think about since Nicole has brought up “green wash”.

A major force in PV technology (can’t remember his name–will post it later) from North Carolina State Univ. in Raleigh, NC, believes most residential homes can’t just “go LEED.” In reality, these homes are better suited for reasonable sustainable features such as efficient HVAC, quality insulation/windows, energy-efficient appliances, tankless water heaters, etc. These features are much easier to plan into a new home AND to renovate into an existing home. Solar, wind, geothermal, etc. are still not cost-effective to the average consumer at this time.

What does this mean? Well, when you consider the environmental performance score for single-family homes, instead of reaching for the sky (i.e., LEED qualifications) look for features that are more in line with what consumers can afford and what contractors can reasonably provide.
Matthew North

Hi M.A.M. – we will be posting the results of the Slow Home Award Winners for both Philadelphia and Vancouver next week. We will also be reviewing the statistics for these cities at the same time.
MollyK

Terri,
I’m glad you mentioned the 2-story living spaces. These are by far one of the worst features for energy-INefficiency in homes today. I am reminded of the group that won the single-family award in Dallas (BradW’s nominee). They specifically mentioned this feature on their website, stating they would NOT build 2-story rooms because of the inefficiency. Just love that kind of dedication.

BTW, I totally messed up on my reference to the PV guro in my previous post. He is not from NC State. His name is John Wiles and he works for Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. Sorry about that.
Therese

1) Location: 0- Very vehicle dependent development
2) Environment: 0- Nothing on green initiatives for this devleopment
3) Siting: 2- Looks decent
4) Organization: 1- It’s okay, but the top floor seems pretty poorly laid out
5) Entry: 1- Entry ways are well sized
6) Indoor Living: 1- Seems pretty decent living
7) Outdoor Living: 1
8) Kitchen: .5- There doesn’t feel like there is enough counter space and the work triangle is also awkward. It’s not bad, but it’s not good.
9) Dining: 1
10) Bedrooms: .5- I don’t mind two of the four bedrooms, but one of the bedrooms has two much wasted hallway space and the master bedroom is very awkardly shaped.
11) Bathrooms: .5- The ensuite is terrible. The .5 is for the other bathrooms because they’re pretty good.
12) Study: 1- Not too bad, well placed and has good lighting
13) Laundry: 0- In the same space as the mudroom which means both spaces are interfering with each other.
14) Parking: 1- Good space for parking, and the garage doesn’t take over the front of the house
Jamie L

1. Location = 0
2. Environmental Performance = 0
3. Siting = 1
4. Organization = 1
5. Entry = 1
6. Indoor Living = 1
7. Outdoor Living = 1
8. Kitchen = 0
9. Dining = 1
10. Bedrooms = 1
11. Bathrooms = 1
12. Study = 1
13. Laundry = 0
14. Parking = 1
10/20
organization- second floor weired circulation/waste of space
entry-good
living room-connection is good outdoor living good
kitchen-island weired shaped no counter bad design
dining-good
bedroom-layout good
bathroom-although the bathroom of the master bedroom is big
laundry-too shallow
frazer

Arbutus

6/20

Overall the layout has the right proportions and approximate locations but the execution is sloppy resulting in weird looking hallways.

1. Location = 0
2. Environmental Performance = 0
3. Siting = 0
4. Organization = 0 For this much space a lot better circulation could have been designed
5. Entry = 1
6. Indoor Living = 1
7. Outdoor Living = 1
8. Kitchen = 0
9. Dining = 0 The dining room that is actually used has a lot of circulation going through it
10. Bedrooms = 1
11. Bathrooms = 0 A walk-in closet through the bathroom and a door swinging into the circulation path in the ensuite?…..
12. Study = 1
13. Laundry = 0
14. Parking = 1
Total = 6/20
Franco

1- Location 0
2- Environmental Performance 0
3- Siting 0
4- Organization 0
5- Entry 1 -nice entry with a convenient closet
6- Indoor Living 1- great room is a good size and works well for entertaining
7- Outdoor Living 1 -oversized deck with a covered patio below, makes for fabulous entertaining
8- Kitchen 0 – the kitchen is a horrible design and poorly organized considering the size of the home. Everything in this kitchen is just wrong
9- Dining 1 – gets points for both a nook and formal dining
10- Bedrooms 0 – although the bedrooms are of decent size, the architectural components/design makes it difficult to arrange furniture. I found there to be too many sharp and awkward corners, as well I found that the Master bedroom is ridiculously difficult to place a bed in without covering windows.
11- Bathrooms 0 – Overall the number of bathrooms is good, but other than the second floor main bath, the bathrooms are not well laid out. I find the layout of the powder room on the main floor awkward (I personally hate doors directly behind sinks). I don’t find the layout of the ensuite/closet practical at all. The water closet is too close to the door entering the ensuite, and the traffic flow seems too congested, especially with the closet off the ensuite.
12- Study 0 – Although there is a nice study off the entrance, again I find this room difficult to place furniture, due to placement of the doors and windows. Moreover, I don’t like that the study is directly off the main entrance, I would prefer a more secluded and private location.
13- Laundry 0- Too small and congested.
14- Parking 0- Although the 2 car garage is normal, I don’t like recesses into garages, I find they just get in the way and make it harder to park in. As well the single doors seem narrow from the drawing, it would have been nice to see either one larger overhead door, or more space between the two doors.

Overall the plan gets a 4/20…so quite low

My largest concern with the plan has to be organization of the space. For over 2700 sq. ft the plan is horribly organized and laid out. It doesn’t maximize livable or usage space to any extent. I think with a bit of reorganization and maybe movement of a few walls, this plan could easily be into the teens on the Slow Home Scale.
ReneP

1. Location = 0 – WalkScore- 6
2. Environmental Performance = 1 – Built Green British Columbia
3. Siting = 1 -community layout is nice enough for this exclusive neighbourhood
4. Organization = 1 -in general the layout is not bad – connection to the outdoors not reat
5. Entry = 1 – good
6. Indoor Living = 1 -living room works
7. Outdoor Living = 1 – nice large deck
8. Kitchen = 0 – seems awkward in the plan – odd shape island and corner pantry
9. Dining = 1 – dining room seems very nice and secluded.
10. Bedrooms = 0 -this was my biggest issue – a lot of wasted space with the diagonal walls in the upstairs – odd entries into the bedrooms
11. Bathrooms = 0 – ensuite very big, and then family bathroom ordinary (but needs to service 3 bedrooms)
12. Study = 1 – nice
13. Laundry = 0 – hidden away far from bedrooms and doubling as mudroom
14. Parking = 1 – functional

Score 9/20
Big house and has the luxury to waste space. I like all the room to play with in the basement, but I really did not like the bathrooms and the layout on the upper floor.
JessicaC

I give the “Arbutus” a ten, sounds like an achievement, but not so much. The main floor plan organization is not horrendous, but what is, is its sprawling, disconnected spaces. That said, I think the most crippling feature is the second level and its clustered, and confused layout resulting in odd-shaped bedroom spaces, difficult to furnish with a circulation complexity that is really unnecessary.
Dan M

I scored it 8, pretty much scored like John and Matt did, however I am giving it 1/3 for ‘builtgreen’ status. Since I’ve had a little experience with builtgreen Alberta, which is similar to BC’s program I’ll chip in on this ‘green washing’ issue. Is builtgreen a greenwashing tactic, well yes and no… the biggest issue is that all the builtgreen programs I’ve seen are voluntary and inconsistent. For example, in Calgary, a home can be considered builtgreen by simply increasing efficiency by 10% (not that hard to do BTW). All the ‘testing’ they do on the home is a blower-door test… this just checks how ‘tight’ the building envelope is. Where this comes into play is, if an envelope is tighter, there will be less leakage of conditioned air (warm or cold) to the outside or outside air to in. This is important to the efficiency of the heating and air conditioning equipment sizing and calculations. The other factors are checking the specifications (and plans) for what types of fixtures and appliances, fenestrations etc. are used. If the manufacturers list them as efficient they count toward to builtgreen status, the kicker is that while a product may be more efficient in a lab, real world performance varies depending on installation and usage. Think of it this way, you buy a furnace that is 85% efficiency rated and run your thermostat at 18C you will likely be more ‘efficient’ than a furnace rated at 90% efficiency with a thermostat set at 23C. So usage, how the consumer uses these products is an integral key to their efficiency, something that is almost never taken into account by rating systems. So in sum what I am saying is that even though it is ‘builtgreen’ it might not be any better than industry standards (actually in the Calgary area, most new homes are at or near builtgreen ‘standards’ to begin with, making it simply a green label to make you feel warm and fuzzy about buying one home over another, I’m sure Vancouver has the same characteristics.
Anyway back to the plan, I find the angles in the kitchen and upper level to disrupt the flow of circulation too much. The master bedroom also has those odd angled walls, and is it just me or is that ‘balcony’ that comes off the master not square? it looks cock-eyed to me… why do you want a balcony to look down into the great room anyway? reminds me of a house I once saw with a window from the bedroom into a hall…… great view…
placing the WIC in the bathroom of the master is a nice touch, good from a indoor air quality point of view (allows the off-gassing of your clothes [air pollution and detergents] to be vented out via the bathroom fan rather than collecting in the bedroom), BUT the angles ruin the bathroom/wic combo, awkward space…
Tayler

Thank you to Molly K for clearing up what sustainability can mean in a large home. I agree that LEED is the best but this a large family home.
Anyways, on to the scoring:

1. Location = 0/3 So far away!
2. Environmental Performance = 1 Like MAM said it is in the Built Green program so I will give it something.
3. Siting = 1 Seems to work well with the neighbouring lots but only on some of the available lots.
4. Organization = 1 The main floor is really open in the areas that need to be, and private in the areas that don’t on the main floor, but the top floor could have been better organized.
5. Entry = 1 Nice foyer, but really large though.
6. Indoor Living = 1 The great room is nice but I wonder how much time people will actually spend in the dining room or if it’s more for “decoration” and the odd guest. I think it could have been utilized better.
7. Outdoor Living = 1 nice large deck
8. Kitchen = 0 The kitchen seems spread out but with not as much counter space as the area allows for.
9. Dining = 1
10. Bedrooms = 0 The bedrooms at the front of the house seem really long and narrow and the M/B has those awkward angles.
11. Bathrooms = 0 I really dont like the only entrance to the closet is through the bathroom. What if you just want privacy but your SO needs to get their clothes?
12. Study = 1 Really like the location of the study off the foyer.
13. Laundry = 0 For the amount of space in this house, I feel like their should have been a table or something in the laundry room instead of a sink (I think that’s what I’m seeing?)
14. Parking = 1 Nice big garage space to double as storage too?

Final Score: 9/20.

For the amount of room in this house I really think that they could have utilized it better. The ensuite bathroom is almost as big as some of the bedrooms! This seems wholly unnecessary. I also really dislike the shape of the kitchen island… a small detail, I know.
Joshua

I’m going to agree to a certain extent with Dan M. The fact is that certain “Built Green” improvements are completely standard now. These small improvements are an advancement but often come from simple quick fixes, such as toilets and furnaces that are more energy efficient. While I am not saying this is bad, it is not enough to get full environmental points. On a scale of 0-3 I’d have to assume no more than a single point. Having said that the other areas that got points:

Indoor and out door living: Nice usable, and accessible spaces.
Dining: Good locations for both informal and formal.
Bedrooms: Bedrooms are nice, don’t hate the master even though it seems a bit weird to have the closet so hard to access. I would have like to see the access to the closet from the main room rather than at the back of the bathroom. (One person changing while the other using the bathroom) But I’ll take the point off of bathrooms rather than bedrooms.
Parking, Entry (once again points off for laundry rather than entry), and Study all get points as well.

Makes an 8/20

What I disliked was the kitchen, I do not like the lack of a good work triangle. The lack of connection between the 3 floors of the house, and the laundry, no reason to have a bad laundry space (Not even a room) with such a large square footage.

Joshua
bstone52

Location = 0
Environmental Performance = 1 – Built Green British Columbia
Siting = 1 – Works well with community
Organization = 1 – Like spaces are somewhat grouped together
Entry = 1
Indoor Living = not enough maximization of natural lighting and outdoor space
Outdoor Living = 1
Kitchen = 0 – not integrated enough with other spaces, defined edge
Dining = 0 – only windows on one side
Bedrooms = 1
Bathrooms = 0 – only 2 on the second level with 4 bedrooms!
Study = 1
Laundry = 0
Parking = 1

Looks nice, but a lot of space is wasted and the home could be organized much better
Ashley P

Location 0
Environmental Performance 0
Siting 0
Organization 0
Entry 1
Indoor Living 1
Outdoor Living 1
Kitchen 1
Dining 1
Bedrooms 0
Bathrooms 1
Study 1
Laundry 0
Parking 0
Total 7

Love hwo the upstairs looks down on the downstairs
90 angle at back of house = wasted space
Tiny bedrooms
Likely that three of the four upstair’s rooms would have to share that one tiny bathroom
Narrow laundry space would likely block access to garage on laundry days
Almost every room gets natural lighting which is great

Build a Slow Home

Buy a Slow Home

UPCOMING WORKSHOPS

Evaluating Single Family Homes In Vancouver

This is Day 181 of the Slow Home Project and we need you to join us in our quest to evaluate the design quality of houses in nine North American cities in nine months.

Recent Comments

Resources

About

Other Info

We Accept