Beasly Park Towns | ? | 3 fl | Complete

interr0bangr · #1 Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 2:49 PM**

Coming to Wilson Street soon it seems.

http://www.corktowns.ca/beasley.html#!/splash

Took these pics the other day.

interr0bangr · #2 Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 2:56 PM**

I see a few listings on MLS as well. Around the 300k mark.

"URBAN Manhattan freehold living, (NO CONDO FEE'S) to be Newly Built, Beasley Park Towns walk to James North and GO Station. Full Tarion warranty. Project metor George H Ross, Senior Adviser to Donald Trump and TV's."The Apprentice'."

Beedok · #3 Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 3:03 PM**

Looks like a good spot for it, especially if it touches the buildings on either side. Modern buildings seem able to do quality fronts, but they always mess up the sides.

SteelTown · #4 Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 3:37 PM**

His other project is the Corktowns.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=200296

durandy · #5 Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 3:46 PM**

If you're going to cookie cutter these plans then at least give up the promise of all brick and show the stucco! Not that I'm that down on the stucco. My gripe with these plans are that the frontages appear to be one long parking strip. There isn't a speck of grass. Isn't there a rule about building to lot ratios and that parking can only be a portion of the free space?

matt602 · #6 Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 6:39 PM**

I was disappointed with how far back the Corktown's are set back from the sidewalk, and this seems to be the same. Kinda silly to market them as "Manhattan freehold living" when they're so far back. The weird use of stucco was also a fair bit of a let down but a new development in this area is still a positive thing and it could be a lot worse.

markbarbera · #7 Posted **Apr 15, 2014, 10:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt602

I was disappointed with how far back the Corktown's are set back from the sidewalk, and this seems to be the same. Kinda silly to market them as "Manhattan freehold living" when they're so far back. The weird use of stucco was also a fair bit of a let down but a new development in this area is still a positive thing and it could be a lot worse.

Agreed. Setting the building so far back and filling that space with driveways is hardly what I would call either a street wall improvement or a Manhattan-style development.

oldcoote · #8 Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 1:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Agreed. Setting the building so far back and filling that space with driveways is hardly what I would call either a street wall improvement or a Manhattan-style development.

This could be a city by-law issue.

flar · #9 Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 2:46 PM**

They should have the same setback as the other buildings on the street.

There are some interesting new design guidelines in Ottawa that apply in older neighbourhoods. Basically, you have to look at 20 houses adjacent to your property. If most of them don't have driveways, you can't have a driveway. If most of them have no front yard, you can't have a front yard, if most of them have a garage, you can have a garage, if most of them are 2.5 storeys, you can't build a one storey bungalow, and so on.

Beedok · #10 Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 4:28 PM**

Ottawa seems to be very focused on building 1 lot 3-4 storey apartmens these days.

flar · #11 Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 4:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

Ottawa seems to be very focused on building 1 lot 3-4 storey apartmens these days.

Ottawa has a lot of infill, both good and bad. I think there may be a less multi-unit infill in certain neighbourhoods with the new code.

There is a case of very innappropriate infill on Armstrong in Hintonburg. It's a three story box built on an extremely narrow lot that looks just ridiculous beside the other houses. It almost looks like part of it overhangs the neighbouring house.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.40532...sUyw!2e0?hl=en

Beedok · #12 Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 5:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

Ottawa has a lot of infill, both good and bad. I think there may be a less multi-unit infill in certain neighbourhoods with the new code.

There is a case of very innappropriate infill on Armstrong in Hintonburg. It's a three story box built on an extremely narrow lot that looks just ridiculous beside the other houses. It almost looks like part of it overhangs the neighbouring house.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.40532...sUyw!2e0?hl=en

That one sticks out a bit more than usual, but I've seen lots of buildings similar to that. I wonder if less multi-unit mini-infills will lead to more apartment highrises. Which reminds me, what happened to Hamilton's crackdown on illegal rentals?

flar · #13 Posted **Apr 16, 2014, 6:04 PM**

The crackdown never happened, because it would have led to mass homelessness.

masterwhite · #14 Posted **Apr 17, 2014, 3:09 PM**

i love the CorkTowns and this project is no different, this is AWESOME.

davidcappi · #15 Posted **Apr 17, 2014, 11:53 PM**

Are we really splitting hairs on exterior finishes? This is infill! Who cares if it's stucco. The Corktowns look fine, and appear to be well constructed. I'd rather have a wide eclectic variety of finishes on properties around the city than holding them to a standard of brick and brick only.

If the renderings hold true, and they're brick, that's fantastic. If not, also fantastic. We're getting another lot filled in.

matt602 · #16 Posted **Apr 17, 2014, 11:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidcappi

Are we really splitting hairs on exterior finishes? This is infill! Who cares if it's stucco. The Corktowns look fine, and appear to be well constructed. I'd rather have a wide eclectic variety of finishes on properties around the city than holding them to a standard of brick and brick only.

If the renderings hold true, and they're brick, that's fantastic. If not, also fantastic. We're getting another lot filled in.

Overall I still have a positive opinion of both this and the Corktowns since as you said, it's infill and it does stay true to the neighborhood scale but I personally find that the stucco really looks odd with the red brick and contrasts in a weird way. I figured they would have just finished the houses entirely in brick, no idea why they chose to randomly throw in a bit of stucco. The rendering for this development does look like it uses a lot less stucco and more brick though.

masterwhite · #17 Posted **Apr 18, 2014, 9:58 PM**

That lot has been for sale for a long time, any one know how much it sold for? And how much it's costing to build this project?

PS. I honestly would not mind paying 300 grand But not in that area.i hope they continue building this design all over the city

interr0bangr · #18 Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 5:43 PM**

New posters up at the site. Looks like they've sold 3 of the 6 so far? August 2015 sounds super optimistic but maybe they could bang this one out now that they've already done a similar project.

markbarbera · #19 Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 9:01 PM**

I like the look, but again, not really NY style with all the units having front parking pads like Corktown (and probably will be compromising brock finish with stucco again).

Who is the councillor that is readily allowing parking variances like these?

coalminecanary · #20 Posted **Jul 23, 2014, 9:17 PM**

is there an alley there? if so it may not have front parking.

the councillor is not personally involved in parking variances as far as I know. the builder applies, the notice goes up, if no one complains, then it gets approved based on staff recommendation.