The Site
The site is organized by a network of grade-level public and semi-public spaces which take advantage of the natural features of the site and provide connections to the surrounding neighbourhood.
The pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems are major components of the space network. All buildings face onto and have access from the public spaces, with sidewalks and narrow roadways serving all dwellings.
Natural Features
Three important aspects of the existing landscape have been identified: the natural slope of the site, the mature deciduous trees within the site, and the park treeline to the south.
The disposition of east-west streets allows the natural slope to remain relatively undisturbed. The various building types are organized along the public spaces so that the rooflines are constant over the site, visually accommodating the two-storey drop in elevation which occurs from west to east and providing the highest density of building at the public face of the community along the existing street edge.
The mature deciduous trees (with one exception) are preserved, and are used to configure public space: the trees line a street and bound the north edge of a public square. With minimal additional planting, they mark other streets by framing or closing views.
Over most of its length, the parkside treeline is reserved for public access. This is accomplished by using it as one side of the southernmost street. Long views to the treeline are provided over the length of the square.
Site Context
The organization of the site connects it to and compliments the surrounding neighbourhood.
On the existing street, a new six-storey apartment building is created, facing the street and prepared to address similar buildings which will be built across the street in the future. A row of trees is planted hard against the street right-of-way in order to define the street space so often absent in Mississauga and to invoke the image of the parkway road ? an important feature of the garden suburb.
Two new streets give access into the site. The southern street extends the image of the park drive into the site, and provides public access to the existing park. The northern street runs the full length of the site, providing connection to the existing apartments to the west. This establishment of a recognizable public access between the two areas ties them both into the local network of streets.
On the north perimeter of the site a service lane is provided which can be shared (if only by pedestrians) by the new buildings and the existing row houses to the north.
Within the site, the public square organizes the connections between the site and its surroundings, providing a motive and a medium for social exchange between the occupants of the new buildings*and their neighbours to the north, west and east. The deliberately formal character of the square acts as a foil to the park, while its location within the site marks it as an extension of the park.
The Dwellings
The dwellings are contained in buildings of three basic types: apartment, row house, and stacked row house. Within the prescribed unit mix, the arrangement of the buildings in relation to the public framework provides a variety of unit types and a variety of relationships to the public framework.
Type A: Apartment Building (one, two
and three-bedroom units)
The building is entered from both street and courtyard sides via passageways at each end of the building leading from street to courtyard. Vertical access, by elevator and stair, occurs on each passageway. Horizontal circulation between vertical access points occurs along exterior galleries on the courtyard side of the building.
On floors one through four, one-bedroom units are located on the galleries, with two-storey two-bedroom units on floor five. A three-bedroom unit is located at each end of each floor, with two-storey three-bedroom units on floor five.
Each unit has a private exterior space: one-bedroom units have balconies overlooking the street; two-bedroom units have roof decks; and three-bedroom units have balconies overlooking the courtyard.
Type B: Stacked Row House (one, two,
three and four-bedroom units)
Three and four-bedroom units are located at grade, with all four-bedroom units at corners. The layouts of these units can be altered. Pairs of these units share an entry porch with pairs of the one, two and three-bedroom units on floor two. The pair of upper units shares a stairway, leading to private entry vestibules. All units have back entries.
All units at grade have a small private garden to the rear, while upper units have balconies, as well as a possibility of private exterior space at grade if parking is not required. (In the courtyard units this possibility is realized due to the decked-over parking.) The balconies of the upper units can be enclosed if desired.
Type C: Row House (four-bedroom units)
All row house units are located on the streets to the west of the square. These units have large private gardens to the rear, made possible by the absence of lanes. Each row house unit has a separate entry porch and a small private garden area on the street.
(From competitor's text)
Two qualities of this project stood out, in the opinion of the jury. First, it split the density called for into two components, an apartment block and a series of ground-related row house groupings. The concentration of the units with fewer bedrooms into the apartment block enabled the designers to free a significant portion of the ground plane, both for private outdoor spaces for the ground-related units as well as for a significant quantity of collective landscaped open space for both active and passive recreation. The submission minimized underground parking and provided for director at least close vehicular access to a majority of units. While many of the jurors recognized the public preference for this, they were concerned at the quantity of paving the scheme incorporated in order to meet this objective. They were especially concerned with the stacked row house groupings to which the designers had provided vehicular access from both sides of the row. The jury thought the unit planning in the submission was workable in principle, but was underdeveloped from a design point-of-view, showing a series of minor weaknesses which further work could reasonably readily resolve. The same was thought of the architectural expression manifested by the submission: promising and sensible, but underdeveloped in the presentation submitted. On balance, the jury found the range of issues addressed by this submission and the logical priority established among them commendable, despite their disappointment with the solution.
(From jury report)
10 scanned / 6 viewable
- Site Plan
- Plan & Section
- Section
- Section
- Section
- Axonometric Drawing
