I read in the Citizen the other day about West end residents complaining about single homes on 35' lots. Heck, my lot is 29' and I've got a great century single home, yard, neat garden, and tons of outdoor space and privacy. Perhaps these people should look a bit further, to find out what is really small.
There is a development proposed for the corner of Gladstone and Cambridge, where there currently is a shocking-yellow house. There will be seven townhouses, each on 12' lots. Judging by the plans and the elevations, should be quite nice neighbors.
There is a cluster of townhouses in a coop accross the street from my house, where all the houses are also on 12' lots. The ground floor consists of the the carport and entry and storage area, the first level up has the kitchen at the back and living room to the front, on the third level there are two bedrooms, one at the front and one at the back of the house. Comfy, efficient, attractive enough. The Cambridge ones might be nicer, given that their parking will be through the back lane rather than dominating the front of the streetscape.
I do believe there are additional 12' lot townhouses on Booth and on historic lower Lorne Street, built by City Living in the early 80's, but of dubious architectural merit. The white stucco Lorne ones in particular are a sore thumb on the Italianate streetscape.
I also am aware of some very narrow houses clustered on courtyards on Nepean near Centennial School, on Lisgar near Percy, and Rochester south of Anderson. But I lack the courage to go out with a tape measure and see just how wide they are, but they are unlikely to be wider than 11'.
I would love to know where in the city is the narrowest lot, and the narrowest house, and the smallest house. I exclude back yard housing/garage conversions, sheds, etc - its gotta be a real house. Not a row house, unless the subject house was built later between two existing houses. Send pictures, please, and I will post them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Interesting idea. I'll keep an eye out, there are a few buildings jammed between other buildings here and there, can't remember exact locations and a few very small houses. There may be ones that are below legal minimum and are grandfathered.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you could get the city to do a database query on lot size...
Go to http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/bylaw/a_z/zoning/proposed_en.html and click on "Map." Make sure "zoning bylaw" is clicked in the panel on the left hand side.
ReplyDeleteThe zoning map shows each lot, and will give you an idea of where to look. There are indeed an awful lot of narrow lots on Lisgar.
I live in the the Coop on Booth Street (186-214 Booth Street). I was taken aback by your comment that our buildings are of "dubious architectural merit". The name of the development is Alex Laidlaw Coop. It came into being in 1981 and was one of the first Coop housing developments in Canada. We are not "city living," but we are wholly self-run. We are also extremely well built and renovating yearly.
ReplyDeleteHelen: I did not say Laidlaw coop was of dubious merit. I said the city living project, you know, the white stucco ones across the street on the east side, and running through to Lorne, are unattractive esp. given their contrast to the Italianate houses on Lorne. I am well aware of Laidlaw coop, having lived, before the coop was built and for a year after, across the street at 203 Booth. The city living units are on 12 foot lots, I do believe the Laidlaw ones are 14' footers.
ReplyDelete-Eric
Ah, ok! I thought you meant our Coop as we have pebble dash stucco exterior wall plating. Obviously, I felt it my duty to defend as the outgoing President! As per the stucco homes, they have done some renovations surely, on the exterior, have they not?
ReplyDeleteAh, ok! I thought you meant our Coop as we have pebble dash stucco exterior wall plating. Obviously, I felt it my duty to defend as the outgoing President! As per the stucco homes, they have done some renovations surely, on the exterior, have they not?
ReplyDelete