A different way to create density

[OldDartmouthMark]

Came across this article in the Herald. Interesting...

http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...or-life-career

More pics on her website:
http://www.susanfitzgeraldarchitecture.com/index.html

View on Google:
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/266...8a0ec9!6m1!1e1

What was there before on Bing Maps:
http://binged.it/1SYMqZf

Thoughts? Opinions? I'd be interested to hear what forum members think of this type of design philosophy.

[Drybrain]

I like it. Similar to the Urban Renewable lofts down on Hunter Street. This city has, in many central areas, very deep lots with large backyards. We don't have much opportunity for laneway housing (like, say, Vancouver) but this could work as our spin on it. If this sort of thing took off, we'd end up with fewer backyards, but also more housing units. It would also help to keep houses affordable for those who want to live centrally but aren't thrilled about living in a multi-unit building forever. Of course, there needs to be a sea change in the way people think about their backyards first.

That Bing Maps aerial is pretty striking, too. Holy parking lots. Build on those and then we can fill in the backyards.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

I like it. Similar to the Urban Renewable lofts down on Hunter Street. This city has, in many central areas, very deep lots with large backyards. We don't have much opportunity for laneway housing (like, say, Vancouver) but this could work as our spin on it. If this sort of thing took off, we'd end up with fewer backyards, but also more housing units. It would also help to keep houses affordable for those who want to live centrally but aren't thrilled about living in a multi-unit building forever. Of course, there needs to be a sea change in the way people think about their backyards first.

That Bing Maps aerial is pretty striking, too. Holy parking lots. Build on those and then we can fill in the backyards.

I can't see it being a huge issue for people who like backyards. I think that there will still remain plenty of houses with backyards, so this would give people a choice.

I'm guessing there would have to be some type of condo-corp agreement among owners, since they would all be sharing the same lot, unless the city changed how they deal with that type of situation (i.e. taxes, etc.).

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I can't see it being a huge issue for people who like backyards. I think that there will still remain plenty of houses with backyards, so this would give people a choice.

Since they put a vegetable garden on their roof, that leads one to believe that an entire backyard could be built onto a roof. I suspect proper drainage and weight support would have to be built underneath, but in a micro density plan, it seems like a perfect way to strike a balance between urban living, multi-level home ownership (or rentership, as the case may be), and having a private green space to raise kids, have a dog etc.

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

Since they put a vegetable garden on their roof, that leads one to believe that an entire backyard could be built onto a roof. I suspect proper drainage and weight support would have to be built underneath, but in a micro density plan, it seems like a perfect way to strike a balance between urban living, multi-level home ownership (or rentership, as the case may be), and having a private green space to raise kids, have a dog etc.

"Here, Rover, go fetch! Fetch the ball, Rover!"

<throws ball, Rover pursues, plummets off roof>

"Rover? Rover?"

[curnhalio]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

"Here, Rover, go fetch! Fetch the ball, Rover!"

<throws ball, Rover pursues, plummets off roof>

"Rover? Rover?"

I thought a fence around all that went without saying...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by curnhalio

Since they put a vegetable garden on their roof, that leads one to believe that an entire backyard could be built onto a roof. I suspect proper drainage and weight support would have to be built underneath, but in a micro density plan, it seems like a perfect way to strike a balance between urban living, multi-level home ownership (or rentership, as the case may be), and having a private green space to raise kids, have a dog etc.

Regardless of the ensuing jocularity, you make a good point. One could have a decent-sized patio surrounded by greenery if desired, which would be a huge step up from the standard condo/apartment 5'X10' concrete balcony.

Presumably, one would train Rover to not jump over the fence...

[eastcoastal]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Regardless of the ensuing jocularity, you make a good point. One could have a decent-sized patio surrounded by greenery if desired, which would be a huge step up from the standard condo/apartment 5'X10' concrete balcony.

Presumably, one would train Rover to not jump over the fence...

OR, throw the ball in the at-grade courtyard.

[Keith P.]

I don't quite understand the bit about the glassed-in walkway or how she overcame the rules about dwelling units, etc., but from a design perspective it looks good, if a little cold. Totally sore-thumb for that neighborhood though, which is extremely gritty and largely old ugly commercial uses.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Totally sore-thumb for that neighborhood though, which is extremely gritty and largely old ugly commercial uses.

That's probably why they were able to do it there, likely not so much NIMBY involvement.

[Hali87]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I don't quite understand the bit about the glassed-in walkway or how she overcame the rules about dwelling units, etc., but from a design perspective it looks good, if a little cold. Totally sore-thumb for that neighborhood though, which is extremely gritty and largely old ugly commercial uses.

Based on what the architect said in the article, there's probably a regulation where there can only be one residential building per residential lot, at least in some areas/zones (dwelling unit may have been the wrong word to use). Usually in this context, accessory buildings like sheds and garages are still allowed, so you can't technically frame it as "one building per lot". But I think the glass passageway is so that there's still technically just "one house" divided into sections.

[planarchy]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Based on what the architect said in the article, there's probably a regulation where there can only be one residential building per residential lot, at least in some areas/zones (dwelling unit may have been the wrong word to use). Usually in this context, accessory buildings like sheds and garages are still allowed, so you can't technically frame it as "one building per lot". But I think the glass passageway is so that there's still technically just "one house" divided into sections.

yes - one main building per lot generally permitted in much of HRM for residential uses. The breezeway connecting the two permits what would otherwise be two residential buildings on a single lot. Kerry Lynch did the a similar thing with his Hunter Street microlofts. I've also seen it accomplished with little more than a frost wall connecting the two. A well meaning regulation , but with silly consequences. Encourages standard subdivision, and prevents laneway-type housing or condo development on a single lot.

[Colin May]

Increases density and looks far better than other developments on the peninsula.
Until the planning rules are changed the second or third residence cannot be owner occupied. I wonder what the costs savings were, her husband is a contractor and other people would find such a project much more expensive.
I know of a similar project in downtown Dartmouth.