Greystone Village development [Main St] | up to 28m | up to 9f | U/C

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It is a shame. Looks like an amazing space inside (based on the pics included in the app). Too bad they couldn't preserve it as a gym (instead of building a new one, though it's an odd shape for a gym) or a performance space, or as you say, just an event space.

Still happy with the overall proposal. Far better than most heritage "preservation" we see in this city.

I walked through here the other day, and I have some comments:

1. I had my doubts about the retirement home, but it's finished, and actually looks great and I like how it interacts with the river side of the building. Looking forward to how this plays out with the other developments.

2. The large buildings are well done, so far. It's interesting how the small streets, large buildings, and towns/single families are all so tight together, and then open out onto the river.

3. The low-rise housing is crazy dense. How did we get to the point where we build housing fronting 'traditional' looking streets, with a traditional walkup through a grassy garden, and then slam yet ANOTHER street in behind with a parking slot and no yard? Why do we still fancy having a traditional walk-up front door when nobody is ever going to use this space for anything other than perhaps the mailman? I don't think I could ever buy a house with the same amount of useable outdoor space as an apartment balcony. Even the single family units fronting the river have a traditional looking front entryway, no front driveway, and a paved back yard (points to the 2 houses that deleted the front door steps and expanded the patio for private space, even though its the traditional 'front'). We've taken the traditional alleyway from the early 1900's and deleted the entire building lot.

4. The patios and entryways from the Chapel Wing have been dismantled, and the exposed structure is shored and otherwise looks quite sketchy. I expect it was a cheap build back in the 1950's(?) during the height of cheapening construction and just can't be renovated/upgraded without huge expense. Too bad, really.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

3. The low-rise housing is crazy dense. How did we get to the point where we build housing fronting 'traditional' looking streets, with a traditional walkup through a grassy garden, and then slam yet ANOTHER street in behind with a parking slot and no yard? Why do we still fancy having a traditional walk-up front door when nobody is ever going to use this space for anything other than perhaps the mailman? I don't think I could ever buy a house with the same amount of useable outdoor space as an apartment balcony. Even the single family units fronting the river have a traditional looking front entryway, no front driveway, and a paved back yard (points to the 2 houses that deleted the front door steps and expanded the patio for private space, even though its the traditional 'front'). We've taken the traditional alleyway from the early 1900's and deleted the entire building lot.

I'm a big fan of this development though it was decidedly out of my price range, personally. I like the small singles along Telmon, but you're right, there is no yard to speak of: there's a front porch and a large back deck. For a family with kids, I don't think this would normally be a big deal with the park so close by, but it must suck right now with COVID: essentially like living in an apartment building.

The only houses in the development that do have a (very small) yard are the singles on Clegg, and they are all $1.2M+

[kwoldtimer]

Is a substantial yard even a thing for urban SFHs and townhouses anymore? I suspect that the majority of buyers would only see needless expense and maintenance hassles. Although we may soon envy those with enough space to put in a veggie patch ...

[TransitZilla]

New buildings being marketed and/or coming soon...

Condo building: The Spencer: https://greystonevillage.ca/thespencer/ (this one?)

"Adult" rental building: The Ballantyne: https://ballantyneliving.ca/ (Building 2B?)

Rental building: Milieu: https://milieuliving.ca/ (Building 2A- Occupancy Fall 2021). Retail Floor Plan: https://milieuliving.ca/retail/#floor-plan

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

New buildings being marketed and/or coming soon...

Condo building: The Spencer: https://greystonevillage.ca/thespencer/ (this one?)

...

I think so. I was told by the sales office last year that 1C would be the next condo in the queue.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Is a substantial yard even a thing for urban SFHs and townhouses anymore? I suspect that the majority of buyers would only see needless expense and maintenance hassles. Although we may soon envy those with enough space to put in a veggie patch ...

I think my point might not be complete.

The land these townhouses are sited on is approximately 50% larger than the townhouses themselves, with an extension to the front and back of each building.

The land in the back is larger than the land in the front.

The land in the front is 200sqft of grass, and 200 sqft of paving for a 'front entrance'.

The land in the back is 100% paved to park a car.

What is the point of having a front yard, which is arguably just a patch of grass to continue to contract the builder's off-shoot property maintenance company to continue to maintain in condo fees, and a fully paved 'back'? Why not just park the car in the front?

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I think my point might not be complete.

The land these townhouses are sited on is approximately 50% larger than the townhouses themselves, with an extension to the front and back of each building.

The land in the back is larger than the land in the front.

The land in the front is 200sqft of grass, and 200 sqft of paving for a 'front entrance'.

The land in the back is 100% paved to park a car.

What is the point of having a front yard, which is arguably just a patch of grass to continue to contract the builder's off-shoot property maintenance company to continue to maintain in condo fees, and a fully paved 'back'? Why not just park the car in the front?

The idea, as far as I see it, is that the front Street becomes the outdoor living space and informal play ground. Without cars and driveways, you'd be surprised at how much friendlier a street feels. With the garage not taking up most of the front of the house you also have more rooms facing the front and therefore more potential for eyes on the street.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

The idea, as far as I see it, is that the front Street becomes the outdoor living space and informal play ground. Without cars and driveways, you'd be surprised at how much friendlier a street feels. With the garage not taking up most of the front of the house you also have more rooms facing the front and therefore more potential for eyes on the street.

That 'sounds' appealing, but... there is no outdoor living happening on this ramp to your front door.
https://goo.gl/maps/goyiy9TLG2E8meUp9

Also, the dark, congested alleyway effect is not appealing to come home to at night:
https://goo.gl/maps/vPh4aHkE2CHaBXNW8

The whole thing feels a bit chaotic, like there's double the amount of space used for car driving and parking than is required.
https://goo.gl/maps/k3oor1W7ME9nwcgr5

[OTownandDown]

Maybe it's just me, I suppose I'm old fashioned that way, but I much prefer the early 2000's typology of dense townhomes for the backyard space:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3700.../data=!3m1!1e3

Compared to the quantity of paving in this 'new' typology.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4083.../data=!3m1!1e3

Although I have to say, I don't miss the crappy plastic add-ons in the terrible Claridge infill units that dot the city lol

[waterloowarrior]

For the location, stacked towns with underground parking would have been much nicer. Even without yards, the laneway between units turns into a natural area for kids to play in and ride their bikes... you can plant trees etc.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6610...7i16384!8i8192

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I think my point might not be complete.

The land these townhouses are sited on is approximately 50% larger than the townhouses themselves, with an extension to the front and back of each building.

The land in the back is larger than the land in the front.

The land in the front is 200sqft of grass, and 200 sqft of paving for a 'front entrance'.

The land in the back is 100% paved to park a car.

What is the point of having a front yard, which is arguably just a patch of grass to continue to contract the builder's off-shoot property maintenance company to continue to maintain in condo fees, and a fully paved 'back'? Why not just park the car in the front?

I find the streetscape of the small singles along Telmon to be quite attractive:



Most of the units have a full-width front porch which is an outdoor activity area in the front, encouraging eyes on the street and neighbourly interaction. Each house as a tree. If the driveways were in front, all this would be paved over and almost guaranteed there would be cars in driveways blocking the sidewalk.

These units are built on a slope, so there garages around back are actually in the basement. The usable outdoor living space on each lot has been maximized by cantilevering decks over top of the driveways:



Could they have pushed the units further toward the street to create a yard at the back? Actually, no: according to the property parcels in GeoOttawa, the front walls of the houses are already at the lot line. The landscaping is actually on the public street ROW:



I hear what you're saying. They could have dropped the rear lane and given everybody a lot 15ft deeper with a patch of grass.

But then they would have needed to push the houses back on the lot to create a parking spot in the driveway in front, so the backyards wouldn't have been much deeper than 15ft. Most people would pave/deck that over anyway, and then with the garage in front, the public streetscape ends up paved, full of cars, and with the buildings farther apart. In other words: suburbia.

I'm personally happy they went with something different. And they didn't have any issues selling these, so I guess I'm not the only one who thinks so.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Maybe it's just me, I suppose I'm old fashioned that way, but I much prefer the early 2000's typology of dense townhomes for the backyard space:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.3700.../data=!3m1!1e3

Compared to the quantity of paving in this 'new' typology.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.4083.../data=!3m1!1e3

You have to be careful about what densities you are comparing. By my estimate the 2000s townhomes you identified (one of which I live in, actually) take up approximately 215 square meters of space (including roadway), while the townhomes in one of those blocks within Greystone take up approximately 165 square meters - and that includes sidewalks!

I do agree though, that once it gets up to those kinds of densities I would prefer just going with a stacked townhome, even with the costs of underground parking. The back-to-back townhomes they are proposing within Greystone on the other side of the park from the Deschatelets building also appeal to me:



Its all sort of a continuum from single family home to apartment, which is what I like about this development - lots of weird in-betweens to entice people to buy-in to urban living.

[gosouth]

Does anybody know when the first Terraces condo tower will be ready for occupancy?

[caveat.doctor]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Maybe it's just me, I suppose I'm old fashioned that way, but I much prefer the early 2000's typology of dense townhomes for the backyard space:

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I find the streetscape of the small singles along Telmon to be quite attractive:



Most of the units have a full-width front porch which is an outdoor activity area in the front, encouraging eyes on the street and neighbourly interaction. Each house as a tree. If the driveways were in front, all this would be paved over and almost guaranteed there would be cars in driveways blocking the sidewalk.

Besides putting more eyes on the street and a nicer streetscape, it also addresses the problem with curb cuts. Front garages and driveways take away the on-street parking, which is especially a problem with infill in places where garage/driveway space hadn't been allocated before.

Originally Posted by https://app06.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2006/02-28/ACS2006-PGM-POL-0013%20ENGLISH.htm

It should also be noted that driveway openings (ie. wider curb cuts) to access front yard parking remove space for on-street parking that would otherwise be available to the public. The substitution of public parking for private parking should be carefully considered with respect to the demand for parking in a neighbourhood.

Personally I like the compromise of semi-detached homes with shared driveways - allows for useable yards front and back (which many still want, at least in my age group with young families) while still more efficiently using the space than detached SFH. Holland Avenue has quite a few of these, for example:

[OTownandDown]

I'm a 30-something city dweller, and I love my postage-stamp back yard, treat it like my baby, and spend every nice day out there for at least a few hours either lounging, bbq'ing, listening to music, al-fresco dinner, etc... Nothing better than sitting out after work under the umbrella with the christmas lights with friends.

I know these are big balconies, but I prefer my tiny garden to a balcony. (NOTE: nobody else uses their back yard in the adjoining properties. Maybe this means my argument is moot).

[rocketphish]

The Deschâtelets Building has been conditionally sold to the Conseil Des Écoles Catholiques De Langue Française du Centre-Est for use as the new École Elementaire Deschâtelets.

The proposed site plan calls for the conversion of the Deschatelets Building into a mixed use facility with the elementary school to occupy half the basement and the first 2 floors of the building while the City of Ottawa is proposing to occupy the other half of the basement for community centre use; the top 2 floors of the building are proposed to accommodate 38 residential units in a future phase.

Development application:
http://app01.ottawa.ca/postingplans/...appId=__B26J8F

[Glenlivet Ave]

Work on the second condo building is progressing...

[Veggie]

July 20th

[rocketphish]

...and here are the construction cam shots from today:





https://greystonevillage.ca/webcam-feed/

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

For the location, stacked towns with underground parking would have been much nicer. Even without yards, the laneway between units turns into a natural area for kids to play in and ride their bikes... you can plant trees etc.

Given what they are paying, it's mind-boggling they didn't get underground parking. But hey, this is Ottawa so....

Alternatively, I've always wondered why developments like this just can't do curbside parking with some kind of awning or shelter partially protecting the car.