HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 6:10 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,536
^ Why is it such an issue if some houses are taller than others? I mean, it's not like they're 20 storeys and putting houses in perpetual shadows or some such. They max out at 3 storeys, although most are just two.

Everyone gripes about houses that are too tall as though it's supposed to be self evident as to why that's a problem. Besides, the old areas are filled with tall homes... why are they not a problem when they're 100 year old 2.5 or even 3 storey Wolseley or Crescentwood homes but suddenly they're a big deal when someone wants to put up a new one on an infill lot?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 7:32 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,191
There already are height restrictions. No infill in an R-1 or R-2 neighbourhood can be taller than 35 feet to the peak of its roof.

Are we going to start limiting infill to bungalows now?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 7:57 PM
Spocket's Avatar
Spocket Spocket is offline
Keep yo pimp hand strong
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Changchun , China
Posts: 3,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy View Post
Some of the houses going are up are really ugly. It would be nice if there were design guidelines for materials used or facades that are not just grey stucco.
Where do you mean? In new developments the developers institute their own design guidelines and materials as a pragmatic choice to keep home values high.

In older neighborhoods, I'm actually happier to not have specific guidelines about design and material. Yeah, you do get the ugly stucco monsters but you also get real diversity in home stock and value.
__________________
Giving you a reason to drink and drive since 1975.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 8:46 PM
borkborkbork borkborkbork is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzg View Post
I absolutely love Matt Allard. I think he's the best councillor ever in my life (28 years) and think he would be an incredible mayor. He's progressive and vision, yet still understanding and realistic. He doesn't let his or his (loud) constituents emotions or personal (often uneducated) beliefs cloud facts, proof, or judgement. I commend him for standing up against other councillors and they mayor – but doing it with facts and figures, and never political grandstanding.

He is the model politician and I'm so happy to live in his ward. I would love him to be mayor, but would be afraid to lose him altogether if the NIMBY crowd representative won.
Does Allard have ambitions to run for mayor? I really admire him.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 8:50 PM
Wpg_Guy's Avatar
Wpg_Guy Wpg_Guy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 4,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by borkborkbork View Post
Does Allard have ambitions to run for mayor? I really admire him.
I bet he runs if Bowman doesn't seek another term. Ah, Bowman, remember when he had so much potential to do great things.
__________________
WINNIPEG | Projects and Development
In The Future Every Building Will Be World-Famous For Fifteen Minutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 9:56 PM
trueviking's Avatar
trueviking trueviking is offline
surely you agree with me
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: winnipeg
Posts: 11,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by borkborkbork View Post
Does Allard have ambitions to run for mayor? I really admire him.
yes. He is working a very effective long term plan. Big fan of his.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 10:13 PM
Pinus Pinus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,254
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
yes. He is working a very effective long term plan. Big fan of his.
It would be great to have a competent mayor with vision and passion, but what good does it do if the rest of council is made up of spineless, ass-backwards, regressive members who fight him tooth and nail at every move and we end up with the same statue quo? A complete cleaning of house at city hall would be the best and most effective outcome for change.
__________________
Canada's biggest downfall: our proximity and physical attachment to 'Murca.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 11:02 PM
Wpg_Guy's Avatar
Wpg_Guy Wpg_Guy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 4,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinus View Post
It would be great to have a competent mayor with vision and passion, but what good does it do if the rest of council is made up of spineless, ass-backwards, regressive members who fight him tooth and nail at every move and we end up with the same statue quo? A complete cleaning of house at city hall would be the best and most effective outcome for change.
When no candidate even runs against anti progressive incumbents like Lukes that is what we end up with.
__________________
WINNIPEG | Projects and Development
In The Future Every Building Will Be World-Famous For Fifteen Minutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2019, 11:12 PM
rrskylar's Avatar
rrskylar rrskylar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WINNIPEG
Posts: 6,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking View Post
There already are height restrictions. No infill in an R-1 or R-2 neighbourhood can be taller than 35 feet to the peak of its roof.

Are we going to start limiting infill to bungalows now?
And 35 feet being roughly the equivalent to the height of a three story apartment block and not at all excessive for a 1920’s to 1960’s neighbourhood at all right!?!?

And in terms of scale a 35 foot high home on a 25 foot lot is acceptable so maybe we should allow 45 feet on a 50 foot lot and maybe 65 feet on a 75 foot lot, everything is scalable right!
__________________
The voice of reason
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 12:27 AM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 8,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
And 35 feet being roughly the equivalent to the height of a three story apartment block and not at all excessive for a 1920’s to 1960’s neighbourhood at all right!?!?

And in terms of scale a 35 foot high home on a 25 foot lot is acceptable so maybe we should allow 45 feet on a 50 foot lot and maybe 65 feet on a 75 foot lot, everything is scalable right!
There has been infill in my 1960-era neighbourhood ever since I can remember. There were always vacant lots, old houses that needed to be upgraded, a few places that burned down. But today you can barely tell which are the infill houses from the 1970s and 80s -- it's not obvious other than slight differences in the styles. They all basically fit into the range of sizes and profiles of the existing houses. The new ones often don't do that at all. They seem to be designed to get the maximum square footage on the lot (or half a lot). They tend to be big and pretentious looking but horribly finished, often in stucco all around. They are so big that there are no trees left around them once they're done, so they stand out all the more bleakly. No wonder people don't want more of this.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 12:50 AM
ywgwalk ywgwalk is offline
Formerly rypinion
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Exchange District, Winnipeg
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrskylar View Post
And 35 feet being roughly the equivalent to the height of a three story apartment block and not at all excessive for a 1920’s to 1960’s neighbourhood at all right!?!?

And in terms of scale a 35 foot high home on a 25 foot lot is acceptable so maybe we should allow 45 feet on a 50 foot lot and maybe 65 feet on a 75 foot lot, everything is scalable right!
Aren't you Mr. "everyone wants to live in giant homes in the suburbs and who are we to stop them?". Well what if many people want to live on small lots in the inner city? If that's what the market demands then .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 2:37 PM
wardlow's Avatar
wardlow wardlow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 492
The reason the maximum height is 35' is because the city's big developers wanted to be able to build monster houses in new subdivisions without having to get a height variance. I don't think too many old houses in older neighbourhoods are much taller than 25'-30'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 2:43 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,536
Why is 35 feet such a problem? Why is the big 2.5 storey old house fine but adding another 8 feet or whatever on top of that is going too far?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 2:47 PM
wardlow's Avatar
wardlow wardlow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywgwalk View Post
Aren't you Mr. "everyone wants to live in giant homes in the suburbs and who are we to stop them?". Well what if many people want to live on small lots in the inner city? If that's what the market demands then .
Exactly.

There is clearly a substantial consumer demand for new housing in old neighbourhoods. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be any "greedy" developers who go through the costly and risky process of getting approval from the City just to build two new houses.

That's just what the market wants works both ways, folks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 2:51 PM
wardlow's Avatar
wardlow wardlow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Why is 35 feet such a problem? Why is the big 2.5 storey old house fine but adding another 8 feet or whatever on top of that is going too far?
Oh I don't think it is, necessarily. I was just pointing out 35' is allowed under the Zoning By-law. Anything is tall next to a dinky bungalow built on a crawlspace in old St. Vital, but the case could be made that 35' is a bit excessive, given that it's such a rarity in older neighbourhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 3:02 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,536
Quote:
Originally Posted by wardlow View Post
Oh I don't think it is, necessarily. I was just pointing out 35' is allowed under the Zoning By-law. Anything is tall next to a dinky bungalow built on a crawlspace in old St. Vital, but the case could be made that 35' is a bit excessive, given that it's such a rarity in older neighbourhoods.
Neighbourhoods evolve. As I said before, it's unreasonable to expect housing to continue to be built to 1920s standards. If standards have changed and people are building bigger houses, then why on earth would the city want to force everyone interested in a modern house to the edge of town, to greenfield subdivisions while the housing stock in older areas rots away?

The reinvigoration of old neighbourhoods that infill housing has provided is something to encourage, assuming you want these neighbourhoods to be filled with nice owner-occupied homes and not just run down rental properties. (Not pointing a finger at you here, wardlow, but at the opponents of infill housing who try and NIMBY every project to death and who dead-weight councillors like Mayes pander to.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 3:32 PM
pmuhar pmuhar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 56
As in infill developer/builder it has become almost impossible to get anything done lately. Im sitting on a few million worth of properties that Ive purchased that I was planning on splitting and building two new homes on(I should mention they are all on streets where 25' lots already exist), but Ive recently just listed them all for sale as-is and will be taking a break from developing infill until we know whats going on. Its actually quite sad, the homes Ive purchased are garbage and instead of being replaced with new housing stock they will probably just sit there vacant. In my opinion they arent even rent-able. I cant see them selling as-is either unless i slash the prices and take huge losses, as nobody wants to buy them but other developers(whom are also taking a break). Unfortunately the economics just dont support tearing them down and replacing with 1 new one either. With the price of the lots + cost of construction we would have to price $650,000+ which just wont work.

Anyway, the city is choosing to side with the residents which is fine, I just hope they realize they are losing millions of dollars of investment, confidence of developers, and will only learn their lesson the hard way. I should also mention these are the same residents that are going to be crying in 10 years when they want to downsize or sell their homes for retirement but nobody wants to buy them(except developers). Im sure they will be supportive of infill then

Last edited by pmuhar; Jul 12, 2019 at 3:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 3:36 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 24,536
^ That sucks. But hey, instead of being a developer you could use your existing properties to become a slumlord... the city's bylaws practically encourage that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2019, 2:30 AM
Bdog's Avatar
Bdog Bdog is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 2,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by wardlow View Post
The reason the maximum height is 35' is because the city's big developers wanted to be able to build monster houses in new subdivisions without having to get a height variance. I don't think too many old houses in older neighbourhoods are much taller than 25'-30'.
Did the "big developers" write the zoning bylaw? lol.

I'm not sure that the supposedly monster houses in new suburbs are taller than the 3 storey homes in Wolseley, Fort Rouge, and St. B.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2019, 3:31 AM
buzzg buzzg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,010
In every mature neighbourhood there are pre-war houses built at the same time of widely varying sizes. Whether it be River Heights, Kildonan, Crescentwood, whatever – it's EXTREMELY common to see a tiny bungalow right beside a 2.5 storey house, or even a small apartment block, all built the same year.

To me, someone painting their house a bright pink or purple (quite common in mature neighbourhoods) "doesn't fit in" a lot more than old and new mixing in common neutral or natural colours. But the city doesn't police paint jobs...
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:50 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.