Times have changed…and so have standard features in houses.

Today when you buy a new house the builder may highlight their standard features such as hardwood floors, 9-foot ceilings or granite counters – but in the past standard features for houses were quite different. In some cases the features that were advertised may now be viewed as negatives. I pulled a handful of old marketing material for houses in Bramalea, and here is what I found – hopefully some of these will take you down memory lane!

Also, you can click on the neighbourhood names to link to the full posts on each area.

a

Advertisement for houses in the A-Section (early 1960s). At the time wall paneling was a highlight and storm windows were common.

aa 65-67

Southgate Village in the D-Section (1965-1967). I am actually impressed that the houses came with shrubs! Some designs came with electric heating and carports…both of which may not seem like highlights today.

b 69-72

Bramalea Townhouses in parts of the C, D and F-Sections (1970-1972). Drapery tracks were included!

c

Westgate in the B-Section (1964-1965). I am not sure what a “Hollywood style vanity” is. At the time coloured bathroom fixtures and linoleum tiles were considered good standard features.

d

Bramalea in Southdown Estates in Mississauga (c. 1972) – although similar plans were built in Bramalea. Aluminum siding was worthy of mention.

e

Also from Southdown Estates. Formica and Arborite were seen as a plus as they are easy-to-clean!

f

A final Southdown Estates example. Vinyl asbestos flooring! Eek! I am not sure that similar models built in Bramalea had this type of flooring…but it is possible.

g

Bay Meadows in the M-Section (1976), and the design was likely also built in Other areas of Bramalea. What is a “post-formed” laminate counter?

h the strand 81-82

The Strand in the J and N-Sections (1981-1983). Quality broadloom, vinyl flooring and aluminium siding were all seen as worthy of mention as standard features.

hh blue mount 81-82

Blue Mount Estates in the L-Section (1980-1982). A paneled recreation room was seen as a good thing (I remember the one we had when I was a kid!), as well as a dropped ceiling with florescent lighting in the kitchen (remember the so-called “Florida ceilings”!).

i showcase 2000 82

Showcase 2000 in the section without a letter (1982). What is a “hammered Swedish steel picket”? Also, remember when dishwashers were not standard and houses came with a cupboard that you could remove to add one if you wanted.

j columbus bay 83-84

Columbus Bay in the P-Section (1982-1985). Here upgrades included stippled ceilings, arborite or formica counters, a smoke detector (just one), and a coloured exhaust hood fan (I wonder how many colours they offered?).

l 1988 NEW

Nortonville Estates West in the L-Section (1988). Back when having a bidet and wet bar were popular.

Thirty or so years from now I am sure we will look back and muse about the standard features in houses built today!

 

Anatomy of a Plan: The L-Shaped House

During the 1980s Bramalea Limited used one particular design more than any other in its advertising for Bramalea (and all of their developments). The design was the built as the Windsor in the Master’s Series in Deerchase in the N-Section. The house is distinctively characterized by an L-shaped facade with the door on an angle between the two arms of the L. Inside, the living and dining rooms are on each side of the entry, with a curved staircase punctuating the foyer.

001

Homes Magazine, June/July 1987

86feb22Toronto Star, February 22, 1986 88sept3

Toronto Star, September 3, 198887sept12

Toronto Star, September 12, 1987 84aug25

Toronto Star, August 25, 1984

c

d

One of the earliest versions of an L-shape plan in Bramalea was in the late 1970s as one of the Limited Edition Homes built in Kimber Park in the J-Section and King’s Row in the L-Section. The Carlton and Edward II plans are essentially the same, and it was the largest and priciest design in Kimber Park when first built. Since the house is wider compared to the Windsor, the kitchen and dining room were tucked in behind the garage, with the living room facing the street and back yard. In later (and narrower) versions the dining room and living room locations swap places.

001

Much like the Windsor, this design was also used extensively in advertising by Bramalea Limited at the time.

77dec24

Toronto Star, December 24, 197777oct8

Toronto Star, October 8, 1977

78jan14

Toronto Star, January 14, 1978

79jan27

Toronto Star, January 27, 1979

In Montara in the N-Section, c. 1987-1988, Bramalea Limited came up with a narrower version of the L-shape plan. The angled front door and the living and dining rooms on each side of the entry remain the same, but the narrowness of the house squeezed out the grand foyer with curved staircase. As is common with all of these L-shaped plans, the family room is across the back of the house.

The wider versions of this house type have the luxury of space surrounding the house to make the street view quite grand. The narrower the house, there is less front yard space is to make a grand statement. Few versions of the Cottonwood were actually built, yet it presents the best facade to the street when sited on a corner lot – as was done in a few cases. The Windsor plan, first introduced at the beginning of this post, is the most popular plan built on corner lots in The Master’s Series in Deerchase for the same reason.

015 019

At the end of the 1980s, Bramalea Limited offered the Saratoga plan at Emerald Cove on Professor’s Lake. While the door is not on an angle, the L-shape facade with the living and dining room on each side and grand foyer remains. For some reason this design was not very popular and it appears that only one was ever built in the area.

005 006 007

As a different take on the L-shaped design, around 1986 Bramalea Limited created this plan for their Fairfields community in Unionville. It has the same layout of living and dining room on each side of the foyer with curved staircase, yet has the unusual feature of a conversation pit at the back of the house – a throwback to the 1970s. Why did conversation pits go out of style? I think they are fantastic and a great spot to gather by the fireplace.

030 042

Missing floor plans needed!

Hello BramaleaBlog readers! I wanted to take the time to thank you all for reading the blog and your comments, questions and stories. As you may have noticed in some of my postings, there are some plans that I am still missing for certain areas in Bramalea. I want to make this blog as complete as possible with all of the plans for houses in Bramalea. As such, below is a list of elusive plans that I do not have, and would love to share with readers. If you have any of the plans, please let me know at bramaleablog@gmail.com

I will continue to share my collection of plans, marketing materials, articles and insights on Bramalea in new posts – as I still have so much to share!

Here is the list, organised by letter section (I am shocked that it is so long, So please help me shorten it!):

A-Section:

– Any of the homes in the A-Section

B-Section:

– Bramalea Hamlet

– Townhouses on Briar Path

– Any of the detached and semi-detached houses not a part of Westgate

– Townhouses on Balmoral Drive

C-Section:

– Any of the plans for Bramalea-on-the-Park (there were a few builders who constructed houses in the area)

D-Section:

– Townhouses by Jannitt on Darras Court

– Any of the houses built under the H.O.M.E plan

E-Section:

– Any of the houses built under the H.O.M.E plan

– Townhouses on Enderby Crescent, Ellerslie Road, Ellis Drive and Enmount Drive

– Townhouses on Eden Park Drive

– Coventry Gardens

F-Section:

– Any of the houses built under the H.O.M.E plan

– The gates of Bramalea by Consolidated Building Corporation at 475 Bramalea Road

– California Club Townhouses by Bramalea Consolidated Developments

– Concept 3/Folkstone Terrace original marketing material/plans

G-Section:

– Plans built by Del-Zotto

– Bramble Tree Hamlet by Coventry

– Semi-detached houses built by Coventry

– Greenmount Gardens by Bramalea Consolidated Developments

– Cumberland Manor by Bramalea Consolidated Developments

– Northgate by Bramalea Consolidated Developments – I am missing the following plans: Maui, Viking, Florence, Kingston, Eldorado, Oakland.

– Zero lot-line houses and adjacent townhouses

H-Section: 

– Zero lot-line houses and adjacent townhouses (I have some, but am missing quite a few, and I have none of the townhouse plans)

– Houses on Heatherington Place

– Sierra condos by Bramalea Limited

J-Section:

– Plans by DelZotto

– Kimber Park by Bramalea Consolidated Developments

– Portland Estates by Bramalea Consolidated Developments

K-Section:

– Any of the condominium plans

L-Section: 

– Moore Park by Bramalea Limited

– Whitehall at Bramalea – I grew up on Longbourne Crescent, so I am desperate to have these plans!

– Bramalea Estates Semis by Bramalea Limited

– Bramalea Woods South by Wycliffe

– Eastcrest homes on Leander Street

– Laura Drive and Lime Ridge Drive by Bramalea Limited

– Ladin Drive and Lupin Court  by Bramalea Limited

– Lakeride Drive and Lehar Court by Fram Building Group

– The 30′ lot houses by Broles on Leeward Drive

– Courtyards of Bramalea Woods

– Townhouses on Vodden Street at Parr Lake South

M-Section:

– Poplar Developments: parts of Maidstone Crescent and Mansfield Street

– Eastcrest Homes: area surrounding Maitland Street

– Georgian Group in Bramalea Estates

– Houses on Madras Place (perhaps LCD Homes or Senna Brothers…not sure)

– Bay Meadows by Bramalea Consolidated Developments (I have some plans, but not all)

– Ashton Crescent

– Northcliffe Gardens by Kerbel/Darcel on Moregate Crescent

– Cedar Glen townhouses by Bramalea Limited on McMullen Crescent and Guildford Crescent

– The Village Three by Bramalea Limited on Morley Crescent

– Sadler Oaks by Ashton Woods homes on Borden Hill Crescent and Wolverton Crescent

– Townhouses on Middleton Way

– Townhouses on Carisbrooke Court

N-Section:

– The Classic Edition by Bramalea Limited

– Nasmith Park by Bramalea Limited

– Montara Woods by Bramalea Limited

– Houses on southeast part of Nanport Street (builder unknown)

– Garden Series plans and corner designs from Montage on the Park by Bramalea Limited

P-Section:

– Water’s Edge by Lakeview Homes

Section without a letter:

– Orchard Place by Kerbel/Darcel on Carleton Place and Franklin Court

– Ritz Towers by Bramalea Limited

 

Thanks once again!

The Villages of Central Park – Canada’s First Zero Lot-Line Housing

When: Built circa 1972-1975

Where: Large parts of the H-Section, and parts of the G and J sections.

Who: Bramalea Consolidated Developments Limited, Cadillac Development Corporation Limited, Consolidated Building Corporation Limited, DelZotto Enterprises Limited, Victoria Wood Development Corporation Inc.

What I Know: I would argue that these houses are some of the most unique in all of the country, both for the architecture and the way that they are sited on the lots.

The designs won an honourable mention in the 1976 Canadian Housing Design Council Awards. Many articles were written on the project in architectural and building-trade journals when it was first built, which have been reproduced in this posting.

There is really so much to write about these innovative houses. At the bottom of the post is an excerpt from my Master’s thesis on Bramalea, regarding the history of the zero lot-line houses.

One interesting aspect of the zero lot line houses can best be seen from above. Below are a series of images that show the fascinating landscape (click on them to make the image larger):

air

This image shows the two different types of layouts – the ones on the left side are more common, while the right side of the photo shows a more random layout of houses on a few select streets in the H-Section. Courtesy of Google Mapshuntington

While all of the houses have unusual siting with the zero lot-line concept, perhaps the most interesting are the ones where the houses are at oblique angles to the road. These few streets look like the houses were thrown down randomly on the land, like a child may do with his/her set of blocks. Courtesy of Bing Maps

huntingwood

Another view of the randomly placed houses in the H-Section. Courtesy of Bing Maps oll plots

This image shows the lot-lines, which are most unusual when the houses are at angles to the road. Courtesy of Brampton Maps

blank

There are many different variations of the facades – too many to show them all here. The image above is a good representation of the type of architecture found in the zero lot-line areas. Common to many of the houses is an asymmetrical roof (which often wraps down one side of the house), a mixture of materials on the facade (brick, different colour siding), uneven window placement (such as the two different sized windows on the side of the house) and blank facades. three

Another view showing the blank facades, uneven roof lines and seemingly random window placement.

angle

Some of the houses have more traditionally inspired facades, but the placement of the houses in relation to each other is far from traditional. The two white houses in the centre of the image are at right angles to each other.

The following section has newspaper articles and advertisements, as well as historic journal articles on the area and houses:

a72sept12a

Toronto Star, September 12, 1972b72sept12

Toronto Star, September 12, 1972

72sept12

Globe and Mail, September 12, 1972 c72dec8 gm

Globe and Mail, December 8, 1972 d74jul11

Toronto Star, July 11, 1974

74nov1 gm

Globe and Mail, November 1, 1974e75sept6

Toronto Star, September 6, 1975

a

Page 63 from Zero lot line housing by David R. Jensen, 1981.b

Canadian Building magazinec

Canadian Building magazine

h1

Canadian Building magazine, July 1971

d e f

g

Canadian Building magazine, December 1972

i j k

Canadian Building magazine, May 1975

l

Canadian Building magazine

m

The Canadian Architect, November 1972

004005

Canadian Housing Design Council Awards 1976.

I only have a few plans for the houses, but would love to get my hot little paws on more. If you have any, please let me know!
006 007 008

Below is an excerpt from my Master’s thesis on Bramalea, regarding the zero lot-line houses:

In the early 1970s, two hundred acres of land were made available in Bramalea by the Ontario Housing Corporation to build affordable housing. According to the master plan, the land was originally set aside for townhouses, which were believed to be the best solution to affordable housing. This plan was changed in 1972 in favour of a mixture of housing, but no specifics were outlined at the time.[1] In order to cut costs, building and planning standards were examined and decisions made as to how to build the most affordable housing. As a result, the Ontario Housing Corporation examined the standard lot size and lot setback standards for detached houses. At the time, the front-yard setback was twenty-five feet from the road, with four-foot side-yard setbacks. It was decided that these spaces were often underused, and thus could be eliminated, thus paving the way for the first application of  the zero lot-line concept in Canada.[2]

The idea of zero lot-line planning was based on the fact that there were to be no setbacks, which meant that a house could be located right on the lot line of the property. Whereas the suburban tradition was to place a house in the centre of a lot, the new concept meant that a house could be placed on either the front, back, or side edge of a lot. The lot could be smaller, with most a mere thirty-by-eighty feet in size, in contrast to the standard fifty-by-one-hundred foot lot for detached houses in 1960s Bramalea. In some cases the lot was not a traditional rectangle, but a multi-faceted irregular shape. By the end of 1972, the first of 2,400 houses were set to be built. The development was titled The Villages of Central Park, and all the houses were located on cul-de-sacs. This made the development very suburban in nature. Since these houses were detached, they fit in with the suburban dream of owning a house of one’s own.

With the assistance of the Government of Ontario’s H.O.M.E. (Home Ownership Made Easy) Plan, the houses were offered at an extremely low price. To make the houses even more affordable, the land was not owned, but leased from the Ontario Housing Corporation for up to fifty years. However, the homeowner had the option of buying the land outright after five years.[3]

In September 1972, construction began on the first six hundred and sixty-four houses of The Villages of Central Park. It was anticipated that these houses would take a year to sell, but in fact they sold out in just six weeks. A waiting list then had to be established for the forthcoming phases. By the middle of 1973, there were well over one thousand names still on the list. The builders had no way of keeping up with the huge demand for the houses, so the list had to be cut off for the next few years to allow those already on it to purchase a home within in the development.[4] By 1974, there had been 1,700 lot-line houses built, with the final 700 in the project slated for completion that year. For the thousands still on the waiting list wanting the remaining 700 houses, a lottery was held to pick names. Those on the list had the option of paying a fee of $100 to enter it, or dropping off the list. If their name was drawn from the lottery, the potential homeowner was shown the available houses and had to make a decision on the spot to purchase.[5] Some stipulations were attached to the purchase, such as that the buyer had to live in the house and not rent it out. In addition, the house could not be sold for five years without the permission of the Ontario Housing Corporation.[6]

Perhaps the most curious aspect of the developments was not the placement of the houses on the lot, but the style of the houses themselves. An array of very contemporary features distinguished the basic rectangular shape of the houses in The Villages of Central Park. The most striking element was the uneven roofline of most of the houses. While a traditional gable roof had the peak at the centre, these houses had the peak placed off-centre allowing two different angles of the roofline, one usually very steep. In some cases the roof rolled down the side of the house and ended at the bottom of the upper level windows. When the house was turned so that the gabled end faced the road, the profile of the roof was unlike anything one would expect in a suburban context.

Secondly, the window arrangement of the zero lot-line houses was unusual, especially by suburban standards. On many of the houses, irregular spacing and window sizes were found on any given façade. For privacy reasons with the zero lot-line arrangement, houses had a windowless façade on the side that sat on the lot line. In some cases, the front of the house, which faced the street, was void of any openings, save for the front door.

Most people had preset notions of what a house was to look like, especially in the suburbs. The uneven rooflines and irregular window placement of the zero lot-line houses were unlike anything that had been built en masse before in residential architecture. Many of the façades of the houses in The Villages of Central Park have since been altered over the years. To make them more “suburban” in style, homeowners added regular shaped windows, windows on walls which had been bare, as well as window boxes and shutters. Even so, the majority of the houses retain their quirky exteriors.


[1] “Home in Brampton for $750 down payment,” The Toronto Star,1 January 1972, p.43.

[2] “Ease rigid municipal standards to cut costs, builders ask,” The Toronto Star, 3 June 1972, p.25.

[3] Toronto Star12 September 1972, p.67.

[4] Toronto Star18 April 1974, p.A6.

[5] Toronto Star11 July 1974, p.A21.

[6] Saulius Svirplys, Bramalea: The History of its Architecture and Built Environment (Gatineau: Saulius Svirplys, 2005).

Addendum May 7, 2017:

I recently found these pages in my files on Bramalea:

1a2b3b4b5b6b7b8b9b

 

 

The Park Collection

When: Built circa 1986-1987

Where: Jeremy Place, Jayfield Road (1 house)

Who: Bramalea Limited

What I Know: During the 1980s, Bramalea Limited began to fill in parcels of land in established areas which were often set aside for an elementary school (but which was never actually built). This is the case for this pocket neighbourhood of 32 houses on a cul-de-sac in the J-Section.

As is typical with these in-fill enclaves, the lot sizes are fairly narrow in comparison to those in the surrounding area. In this case they lots are 38-feet wide, yet all of the houses have an oversize 1-car garage or 2-car garage. The houses are fairly large and all have a main-floor family room and an ensuite bathroom off of the master bedroom. Interestingly, the Uxbridge plan is the only design without completely separate living and dining rooms, and it is the most open-concept design offered in the area.

a b c d e f g h i j

The one house in this area built on Jayfield Road (which is 58-feet wide at the front) appears to be the same as the Ashley plan from the Master’s Series in Deerchase – shown below.

k

l

The two corner houses in the area appear to be a variation of typical corner designs built by Bramalea Limited in the late 1980s – particularly in the N-Section. Below is one of the versions of the plans – although in The Park Collection the garage doors are to the side. The house on the left side of the entry to Jeremy Place has been enlarged beyond the original footprint, and is almost unrecognizable compared to what it used to look like.

mirada elev mirada plan

Anatomy of a Plan: A Trendsetter Before its Time

VS

At the end of the 1990s, there began a major change in the way that many suburban houses were designed in the Greater Toronto Area. This was a change from the type of houses which started to be built in the 1980s characterized by a protruding garage. By the late 1990s the so called ‘wide lot’ houses with the garage recessed into the massing of the structure became popular. This allows for the house itself to be closer to the road. The builder Mattamy Homes was one of the first to promote such ‘wide lot’ designs for whole subdivisions starting around 1997, but almost two decades earlier, Bramalea Limited began building these trend-setting houses in many Bramalea communities.

Beginning at the end of the 1970s Bramalea Limited offered 1 or 2 such recessed-garage designs in certain communities. These plans were built next to houses with protruding garages, but were effective in breaking up what could otherwise be a monotonous streetscape.

The first series of houses presented below are the most common type built by Bramalea Limited, and have a completely flat front. Since the second floor is smaller than the main level and pulled to the front of the house, there is a ‘tail’ where the main floor sticks out at the back. The facades are almost symmetrical and reminiscent of a Georgian centre-hall plan – although one side of the main floor is the garage.

There are two main plans from this particular series, one at 1774 square feet, and another at 2040 square feet, built on 36 or 38-foot wide lots. They were built in various parts of Bramalea –  sometimes with slight tweaks in the plan and facade, while in other cases the exact same plan was built in various areas.

1774 1774p

Sunset, N-Section, c. 1983-19851774g

1774gp

Sunset on Greenmount, G-Section, c. 1984

2040

2040p

Manorcrest, M-Section, c. 1984

2040g

2040gp

Sunset on Greenmount, G-Section, c. 1984

2040S 2040sp

Sunset, N-Section, c. 1983-1985 2040t 2040tp

Trail Ridge, N-Section, c. 1985-1987

It is interesting that the Bramalea versions of these houses were all quite similar. The company commonly built identical houses in Pickering, but in a few of Bramalea Limited’s other neighbourhoods the houses had very different facades for the same plans. Below is their plan for a development in Unionville, which is completely different from those at Bramalea:

001 002

Fairfields, Unionville, c. 1986

There are wider variations of the houses with a recessed two-car garage and flat fronts. The asymmetry is sometimes offset with a split facade, where the portion with the garage is recessed.

g h

Sterling Ridge, N-Section, c. 1980-1981W4

W4P

Sunrise Estates, M-Section, c. 1979-1980

007

The Strand by the Lake, J-Section, c. 1981-1982 and The Strand by the Park, N-Section, c. 1982-1983

Other narrow variations of recessed-garage houses were also built, but in these examples the front facade is not completely flat. As such, some have the ‘tail’ of the main floor sticking out behind, while others have the main floor protruding out in front of the house.

W2A

W2P

Sunrise Estates, M-Section, c. 1979-1980

004

Professor’s Lake South, J-Section, c. 1979-1980023

Super Singles Sale, M-Section, c. 1979

k

l

Showcase 2000, M-Section and section without a letter, c. 1982 
q

r

Highland Park, H-Section, c. 1984

Today, houses with a recessed garage the norm in new subdivisions. Some of the most recent additions to Bramalea – namely the infill pockets of houses on New Hampshire Court, Locksley Place/Hillside Drive – all have recessed garages. Perhaps the inspiration for such plans came from those that Bramalea Limited started building 35 years ago.

Professor’s Lake South

When: Built circa 1979-1980

Where: Jameson Crescent, Junewood Crescent, Joshua Court

Who: Built by Bramalea Homes

What I know: Some of the designs were also built in the Super Singles Sale development in the M-Section (http://goo.gl/0YVQmK), but with some new additions – including a corner house design. It is interesting to note that most of the new designs added to this neighbourhood have family rooms. The Windermere design is essentially the Huntington with a family room over the garage instead of a 4th bedroom.

002 (2) 003 (2)

001 (2)

001003 004005 006 007

The 1958 Master Plan for Bramalea

013

This proposed map is actually a dozen pages in to the 1958 Master Plan for Bramalea, but I thought it would be an interesting starting point to present the pages from the portfolio. There are actually two slightly different versions of the Master Plan from the same year – at this point I will present one of the two. Please click on any of the images to make them larger.

The map above depicts the first plan of the satellite city with limited detail. The A and C-Sections were built as depicted, and part of the B-Section is correct. The rest was not built as planned. The proposal shows letter sections all the way up to “Y”, with an I and an O-Section, the two letter sections left out of Bramalea as built. I always wonder why those letters were left out. Just east of Montreal, the City of Brossard also has letter sections, but does have an I-Section (which is industrial!) and an O-Section.

The Bramalea City Centre was built in the location planned, but the service industry section became the H-Section and the prestige industry on Queen Street did not get developed as such. The proposed G, S and T sections became industrial creating what now is a J-shaped industrial belt on the edges of Bramalea. Also notice the proposed golf course in the present day J and P-Sections. The 1969 Master Plan showed this proposed golf course relocated to the L and N-Sections…and was never actually built anywhere in Bramalea.

003

It was proposed that all of Bramalea would be built in a decade. In reality it took four times as long, and still continues to grow with in-fill neighbourhoods added with time.004

No high rises are show here, yet the next page explains that Bramalea was to have an urban atmosphere.005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012

It is interesting to read the 4th paragraph, which describes the almost utopian dream of Bramalea. No air pollution! Other early promotional material mentions that there would be no traffic congestion, smog or urban sprawl.014 015 016

“Some farms will be left intact” Hmm…does the barn at the petting zoo in Chinguacousy Park count?

017 018 019

020 021 022 023

Close…but not exactly as built, especially the top-centre and left-side parts of the plan.024

Perhaps they shouldn’t have depended on the Avro Aircraft industry in Malton as a potential employer….
025 026 027 029Please feel free to add any comments, insights, or reactions to this founding document for Bramalea.

The Strand by the Lake and The Strand by the Park

When: Built in the J-Section circa 1981-1982, and in the N-Section circa 1982-1983

Where: Jaffa Drive, Judo Court, Neptune Court, Noontide Court.

Who: Bramalea Limited

What I know: The Strand series of plans were built in two areas of Bramalea, the J-Section first (The Strand by the Lake) and then the N-Section (The Strand by the Park). As the titles of each area make clear, one area is by a lake (Professor’s Lake), while the other is by a park (Northhampton Park).

The plans are based on best-selling designs from other Bramalea neighbourhoods.

Marketing for The Strand by the Lake:

81nov7

Toronto Star, November 7, 1981 81oct17

Toronto Star, October 17, 1981

81dec19

Toronto Star, December 19, 1981

82jan16

Toronto Star, January 16, 1982

82apr2

Toronto Star, April 2, 198282apr3

Toronto Star, April 3, 1982

82may22

Toronto Star, May 22, 1982

Marketing for The Strand by the Park:

82oct16

Toronto Star, October 16, 1982 82nov13

Toronto Star, November 13, 1982

The same plans were built in both areas, but here is the marketing/plan package for the Strand by the Lake:

001

005 006 007 008 009

002

The site plan for The Strand by the Park:

001 (2)

004

003