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.