[ShepherdsDog]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/ ... house.html

I am tinking sumvun vrom Surrey has been moo-wing to River Heights?

[Freakinoldguy]

It looks like a fekin apartment building

So other than blocking out the sun for a 5 block area, what's the problem?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I'd have to say if I owned one of the houses on either side of that place and suffered a drop in property value, I'd be lawyering up and suing both the owners and the City.

[Benn]

Suing based on what though? It is built within the law. I still think it looks retardedly out of place however. I'd feel like a douche living in it never mind the fact my neighbors all hate me before we meet.

[martin14]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/09/05/mb-river-heights-monster-house.html

I am tinking sumvun vrom Surrey has been moo-wing to River Heights?

Fucking round eyes, we will chase them all out !

[ShepherdsDog]

My house isn't too far away from this place, up near Academy and Cambridge/Oxford.. One of my son's friends lives on Montrose across from Montrose school...this place will be an eyesore, completely out of character with the rest of the homes.

[Benn]

Its a nice area but whoever is building that place must really have a hard on for the area to build such an eyesore and willingly become the local outcast.

[Thanos]

Looks like Winterpeg's got some weak local bylaws on forcing in-fills to match the sizes and styles of existing neighbourhoods. The problem's just started for this 'hood though, going by the Calgary example. The older houses will be bought up at an increasingly rapid pace, demolished down to the foundation, and replaced by more and more in-fills until the old neighbourhood is essentially gone.

That's life though. Despite the alleged love for the older homes there's a limit to how long they can go anyway without requiring major changes to the original plumbing and electrical, which can easily bankrupt an owner if it goes too far. At a certain point in the life of an old house it's easier and cheaper for the owner to sell to a developer and buy something new somewhere else. And the older ones built before the mid-1960's usually only had cellars for storage and utility uses, which is kind of a problem for selling in this day and age when buyers now all want a finished basement for home theatres or bedrooms, or want a big empty basement to develop themselves. The new houses have their problems too but in the long run, with the major work done up-front, they usually end up being a lot less expensive. Like you see on the Mike Holmes show there's just too many old ones where someone with no skills in construction went to Home Depot and got too many wrong (and highly illegal) do-it-yourself ideas. Or they went cheap and hired a bad contractor who butchered everything, leaving a potentially lethal nightmare for the next set of owners to have to fix. As long as they didn't use any of that toxic Chinese drywall, new-built is probably the safer way to go for most home buyers.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

arted for this 'hood though, going by the Calgary example. The older houses will be bought up at an increasingly rapid pace, demolished down to the foundation, and replaced by more and more in-fills until the old neighbourhood is essentially gone.

Not in this neighbourhood.

[Thanos]

It can happen anywhere. The neighbourhood next to where I grew up was full of huge 3000+ sq. ft. houses that were all worth around $1 million in 1985 dollars. Today they're all easily worth three times that. But the old ones are still disappearing anyway and being replaced by McMansions these days. Once enough owners are willing to sell to get the cash, and they have every right to do so too, and the custom-home type of developers get in motion it's pretty much an unstoppable process. It might take 20 years for the transition to complete itself but the old-style houses still end up extinct.

[bootlegga]

I agree it looks out of place, but that's progress. Either we let people build these houses in the core, or they move way out into the suburbs and build them there. In the long run, the more sustainable option is to let people infill.

Besides, why can't someone build a bigger, modern house in an older neighbourhood? Many of those older houses are too small and/or have inadequate facilities for most families nowadays.

My sister lives in Ritchie (just off Whyte Avenue) here in Edmonton and most of the houses in her area were built just in the 1910s/20s. She bought there because it's close to things she loves, but I know she casts envious glances at my house when she comes over - dreaming of having a second bathroom (nevermind four like I have), or more than two bedrooms.

Developers are slowing buyers up corner lots in her area and knocking down the houses and putting up three/fourplexes in their place, while others are buying up 1000 sq ft 2 bedroom homes, kncking them down and putting up 2000-2500 sq ft homes that essentially covering the entire lot. Long term, I think it makes a lot of sense, both from the City's POV and the owners. It will help wean people off living in the suburbs.

Lord knows, if I had had enough money to do so I would have done the same - bought an older house in the core somewhere and knocked it down and rebuilt a new house in its place.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

Either we let people build these houses in the core, or they move way out into the suburbs and build them there.

River heights isn't that far removed from the downtown...just on the other side of the river from neo hippy central.

[2Cdo]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Either we let people build these houses in the core, or they move way out into the suburbs and build them there.

River heights isn't that far removed from the downtown...just on the other side of the river from neo hippy central.

I had to laugh at your "Whitey No Go" area.

[Regina]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Either we let people build these houses in the core, or they move way out into the suburbs and build them there.

River heights isn't that far removed from the downtown...just on the other side of the river from neo hippy central.

I had to laugh at your "Whitey No Go" area.

Me too!

[bootlegga]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

$1:

Either we let people build these houses in the core, or they move way out into the suburbs and build them there.

River heights isn't that far removed from the downtown...just on the other side of the river from neo hippy central.

That was my point exactly.

Cities are slowly going bankrupt extending services (water, sewage, electricity, schools, parks, roads, police/fire, transit, etc) to far flung suburbs. It makes far more sense to redevelop existing areas and have people live in the core where it is denser and thus cheaper to provide all of those services - building bigger houses in older neighbourhoods encourages families to live there, instead of seniors and single people, making those areas more densely populated.

Even though most Prairie cities don't have natural geographic boundaries like other Canadian cities (mountains, oceans/lakes, etc), we can't forever continue building out - it's time to think about building up.

New suburbs on Edmonton fringes will cost the city another $1.7 Billion in capital costs alone;

$1:

New neighbourhoods already approved by Edmonton city council will cost the city an additional $1.2 billion for fire halls, parks, police stations and libraries, says a new report that gives the numbers for the first time.

"Oh my god, that's not including the LRT," said Coun. Linda Sloan, hearing the figures for the first time. "It just shows the city is not sustainable. We can't continue to grow the way we are."

City councillors have approved development in 44 new neighbourhoods on the fringes of the city without knowing how much services for these neighbourhoods would cost. The growth co-ordination strategy, released in draft form this week, quantifies the cost for the first time.

Developers pay for the initial costs of building neighbourhood roads and sewers, but other capital costs are borne by taxpayers. The extra $1.2 billion in the new report doesn't include costs to run and maintain the new facilities.

It also doesn't include the $479 million already committed to build infrastructure in those new neighbourhoods, including Trumpeter and Secord in the west, Chappelle and Windermere in the south, Tamarack in the southeast and McConachie in the north.

http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=6594649

Either provincial and federal governments need to dole out more money for cities or cities have to come up with plans to ensure sustainable development. Since we know more money isn't an option, it boils down to sustainability.

If that means knocking down ancient homes and putting up larger, more modern ones that can house more people, I'm all for it.