Calgary Construction XXVI

[speedog]

Alleys, people either hate them or love them. Lack of parking in laneless areas, all I know is finding on street parking is quite difficult is if I visit my sister-in-law when she's having a family get together. And it's not like I can park in another person's driveway there.

As for people peering over my fence into my backyard in a laned community, who cares? Shit, they might see me bending over doing some gardening or better yet, my wife sun bathing in the summer - if anything, they might be more scarred than me.

Personally, I like streets with no garages in front as the homes just have more character but then again, maybe a wall of blank garage doors is character to some.

[milomilo]

Looks like we have another binary argument where we all have to pick a side. Sweet! I'm on team alley. Snout homes are the ugliest form of housing possible, so the minor additional space to add an alley is worth it. There is more to sprawl though than density, the road network in the 'inner sprawl' is much more conducive to walkability than the mess we get in the suburbs.

[jc_yyc_ca]

That's the exact result of no alleys. Ugly, suburban garbage.

Originally Posted by Deepstar

And instead installed ugly mouth gaping garages on the front of the house. Maybe it saves a few hundred dollars of the city maintaining an alley every 20 years, but now we're stuck with thousands of ugly houses and streets forever. Half of Calgary is gross ugly suburban wasteland because of it.

[jc_yyc_ca]

The amount of sprawl caused by alleyways is minimal. It's not about sprawl, it's about beauty and usefulness. The ugliness of the burbs is a direct result of the lack of alleways.

There's a reason that the so-called inner sprawl neighborhoods are the most desired. They're the nicest.

Originally Posted by suburbia

I don't think it is about that, actually. The real issue with alleys is that they are a complete additional waste of space in Calgary's inner sprawl neighbourhoods. We're concerned about inefficient use of space in this city, and large lots with small houses plus an alley in the back just don't make sense. We love the planet.

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

long live the alleys!

[Bad Grizzly]

To each their own I guess. I find alley ways to be a blight, being most of them are full of weeds, garbage and junk, or rusted out cars. They are also a privacy and crime concern, but hey if you have junk to store or need to park a rusted old beater somewhere, what better place than the alley. I can see how people would find them useful.

[Rollerstud98]

My alley has more trees than NE Calgary. So it is pretty nice.

[suburbia]

I hadn't seen ONE in a while. Looks like it is coming across nicely!


LINK - https://twitter.com/StrategicGrp/sta...78815931539456

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

The amount of sprawl caused by alleyways is minimal. It's not about sprawl, it's about beauty

WTF? You have 6,000sf lots plus an added 1000sf of dead space all for 900sf houses in the Inner Sprawl neighbourhoods, and you're claiming that is about beauty and nothing to do with under utilization of urban space? That's a joke if I ever heard one.

If you want low land utilization but at least with beauty, look at some of the gorgeous houses and lots in upper mount royal. Imagine how that would look with back alleys with piles of crap.

[jc_yyc_ca]

First off, most of the houses in the inner sprawl neighborhoods are bungalows, so while the houses in the burbs may have two storeys, they have more square footage, so the actual footprint isn't much different. Yes the lots are bigger in the inner sprawl areas. Is the space better utilized in the burbs? Yes it is, but not grossly different. The burbs are more dense, but the density is done poorly, so it negates it anyhow. That and the suburbs in general, just look like shit. I'd rather have a nicer looking city, than density for the sake of density when it's done wrong, and looks like crap.

Originally Posted by suburbia

WTF? You have 6,000sf lots plus an added 1000sf of dead space all for 900sf houses in the Inner Sprawl neighbourhoods, and you're claiming that is about beauty and nothing to do with under utilization of urban space? That's a joke if I ever heard one.

If you want low land utilization but at least with beauty, look at some of the gorgeous houses and lots in upper mount royal. Imagine how that would look with back alleys with piles of crap.

[milomilo]

Agreed, and it's a false dichotomy anyway. Rather than cram in as large a SFH on as small a lot as possible, it's better to have a mix of buildings serving different purposes in appropriate locations. The suburbs we build today are dense, sure, but they're absolutely ghastly, with the road networks no better than before.

It's possible the restrictive density policies on new development could even induce more sprawl, if fewer people choose not to live in one of those shit-boxes and moves outside the city instead.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

First off, most of the houses in the inner sprawl neighborhoods are bungalows

I was specifically referring to inner sprawl neighborhoods, which we've articulated in detail several times previously. 50x120 lots + alleys with 1000sf and less homes on them. The lowest density areas in the city.

[Tobyoby]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

First off, most of the houses in the inner sprawl neighborhoods are bungalows, so while the houses in the burbs may have two storeys, they have more square footage, so the actual footprint isn't much different. Yes the lots are bigger in the inner sprawl areas. Is the space better utilized in the burbs? Yes it is, but not grossly different. The burbs are more dense, but the density is done poorly, so it negates it anyhow. That and the suburbs in general, just look like shit. I'd rather have a nicer looking city, than density for the sake of density when it's done wrong, and looks like crap.

100% spoken for the truth. Density is meaning less if it's crap density, and that's what the suburbs are. The inner sprawl neighbourhoods may be less dense, but they are 100 X nicer than higher density suburbs of today.

I like the inner city myself, but would choose those inner sprawl neighborhoods in a second over some generic burb at the edge of the city.

[Tobyoby]

I mean, this is more dense than the inner sprawl neighbourhoods, but this is what we want to aspire to?

[BlaineN]

Looks like Markham.

Originally Posted by Tobyoby

I mean, this is more dense than the inner sprawl neighbourhoods, but this is what we want to aspire to?

[dg66]

Originally Posted by BlaineN

Looks like Markham.

Probably Phoenix. A lot of the yards have no grass, and I’m pretty sure I see a palm tree or two.

[dg66]

Look the suburbs aren’t perfect, but they don’t look like shit. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there are many suburbs around Calgary that are very nice.

Did it ever occur to you, that there’s a reason most people buy in the suburbs?

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

First off, most of the houses in the inner sprawl neighborhoods are bungalows, so while the houses in the burbs may have two storeys, they have more square footage, so the actual footprint isn't much different. Yes the lots are bigger in the inner sprawl areas. Is the space better utilized in the burbs? Yes it is, but not grossly different. The burbs are more dense, but the density is done poorly, so it negates it anyhow. That and the suburbs in general, just look like shit. I'd rather have a nicer looking city, than density for the sake of density when it's done wrong, and looks like crap.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by dg66

Did it ever occur to you, that there’s a reason most people buy in the suburbs?

Cost, obviously. You get a lot 'more' for your money in the suburbs. Doesn't change the fact that the suburbs, Calgary's in particular, look like shit.

[Daemon]

Photos from when it was winter still. I forgot to put these No more winter photos, only from now on spring.

I try handmade stitch, however it is irregular.




the three photos tried to stitch

[Daemon]