[trinavu]

Cambridge Square: 12 x 3.5-storey condo-townhouse development by King & Benton Group on the east side of Bechtel Street, south of Groh Avenue, in the Hespeler neighbourhood of Cambridge.

Renderings are from the submission package, Crescent Homes, & Orchard Design Studio

 

[innsertnamehere]

MHBC is not an architecture firm, only landscaping, so the architect is likely someone else

 

[Northern Light]

MHBC is not an architecture firm, only landscaping, so the architect is likely someone else

A preliminary look, w/o tracking down the submission to Cambridge, did not show me an architect.

But it did show that MHBC did the 'Urban Design Brief' for the development:

 

[ben.thebean1]

Holy parking lot. No way all those spaces are mandated, right? That's 2.15 spaces per unit, or 2 spaces per unit plus 30 extra

 

[innsertnamehere]

Holy parking lot. No way all those spaces are mandated, right? That's 2.15 spaces per unit, or 2 spaces per unit plus 30 extra

2 spaces per unit plus 0.15 visitor spaces isn't uncommon for suburban townhouse complexes.

It's just that it usually comes in the form of 1 surface space and a garage space for each unit on individual driveways, plus a few common visitor areas. In this case it looks odd as it's all in common surface lots.

This development in Scarborough likely has around 2.15 spaces per unit for example, and it looks fine:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

This is also odd in general since these are stacked units, which almost always have lower requirements.

 

[marcus_a_j]

Ya, this seems high for stacked townhouses. For parking requirements, stacked townhouses generally follow rates associated with apartment units. At the high end, generally there are 1.5 spaces for residents and 0.25 spaces for visitors per unit on stacked townhouse projects in the 905-area. Near transit priority corridors/areas, it can go down to 1.0 space per unit for residents and 0.15 for visitors.

 

[ben.thebean1]

2 spaces per unit plus 0.15 visitor spaces isn't uncommon for suburban townhouse complexes.

It's just that it usually comes in the form of 1 surface space and a garage space for each unit on individual driveways, plus a few common visitor areas. In this case it looks odd as it's all in common surface lots.

This development in Scarborough likely has around 2.15 spaces per unit for example, and it looks fine:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

This is also odd in general since these are stacked units, which almost always have lower requirements.

I guess that's what I meant really, it does make sense considering its location but it looks wildly unappealing with all that concrete, especially compared to similar developments around southern Ontario.

 

[Matt.R.WR]

Cambridge Square: 12 x 3.5-storey condo-townhouse development by King & Benton Group on the east side of Bechtel Street, south of Groh Avenue, in the Hespeler neighbourhood of Cambridge.

Renderings are from the submission package, Crescent Homes, & Orchard Design Studio

View attachment 456047View attachment 456048
View attachment 455972

Renderings of the unit exteriors appear on Crescent Homes' Maple Keys website too (https://www.crescenthomes.ca/property/maple-keys/). The aerial view also conforms to that Maple Keys development site plan. I was confused by that view because there was no layout of the structures on the Groh site where that configuration exists, so I don't think it applies to the Groh project. Also, this project no longer shows up on Crescent Homes' website... so that's interesting I guess.

 

[Matt.R.WR]

Took some photos of the site yesterday. Fencing has come down and there's been some site work or grading done on the portion of the property along Groh and Bechtel. Southern part of the site (not shown) remains largely untouched. Also including a couple pictures of the multi-use path that was completed along Groh this summer. It's getting a lot of use!

I still firmly believe this site is perfect for 4-over-1 and 5-over-1 development, especially given the distance it is from the 410 Queen St W proposal (which has been reduced in scale [which I'm pissed about bc the first iteration was gorgeous], but is still large).