Canadian Skyline Thread III - Page 114

WhipperSnapper · #**2261** Posted **Nov 4, 2024, 11:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's great that you're taking the time to summarize your reading of posts to help identify possible misunderstandings. In this case that's definitely not my intended meaning. I neither said nor implied that people shouldn't take an interest in their communities beyond their own homes. What I said is they shouldn't take that specific interest (how big the interiors of other people's homes are). Adding density does not necessitate ignoring planning principles and in fact planning principles often encourage density. You can take an interest in the exterior design of neighbouring buildings, how they meet the street, the amount of greenery, the height of buildings, and even the total number of units being built in an area. I might disagree with the positions people take on those topics but I wouldn't say it was none of their business. I limit that statement to only things that are none of people's business.

People are apprehensive on development as even the best intended developer still has to please their investors. That doesn't make them NIMBYs as the crazy cat lady. There's no misunderstanding. Every post there's something like busy bodies homeowners causing housing inaffordability or the interior square footage of a house which is reflected in lot coverage, lot setbacks, number of floors or the basis of city planning shouldn't be a neighbour's business.

WhipperSnapper · #**2262** Posted **Nov 5, 2024, 12:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

You guys make some good points but none of this makes the current approach sustainable, which is letting hundreds of thousands of people jam into already established areas, with few concrete plans for accommodation and just hoping that the market and the rest of the stuff that is essential to a good Canadian life are able to catch up at some point.

Yeah, the tens of millions of people the powers that be hope will move to Canada is the point. Building a new city from scratch is not supposed to be realistic but, so are the growth intentions.

We aren't adjusting the urban fabric to accommodate more population. We are intensifying lots including town sized housing projects (10,000 units) that mimic socialist Asian countries master plans.

Ontario's health care system is cracking at the population growth pressures in any case. Ontario is reliant on outsourcing in a highly competitive global market. There aren't enough doctors globally.

Djeffery · #**2263** Posted **Nov 5, 2024, 2:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

An in-ground pool is a veritable money pit. Lovely for 5 months of the year (OK, four months without a heater, but I get 5-6 months with one). A real drain on the wallet, though.

I don't miss mine at all. When we looked for a house in west London in 2009, it either had to have a pool or a lot and price that accommodated us putting a pool in. We got the house in Byron and put in the pool in 2010. Cost us a little under $40,000 then. Our taxes went up $500 year. House insurance went up. I cant even guess how much it cost us to run and heat the thing, but I'm guessing $1500 a year. We replaced the heater, pump and salt generator. It needed a liner towards the end. Sold the house in the winter of 22/23 and the new owners took the pool out that first year. Don't blame them a bit. Sure, we got use out of it, but the novelty wore off fast. Kids were 8 when we put the pool in, and I bet my son didn't go in it once after about 4 years. My daughter was a bit more social with school friends but even still, it was rare she used it. Really, my wife was the main user of it, and all she did was float around and read. She said she could do that in a Walmart inflatable lol.

Man, when I think of the money I sunk into that thing over the 13 seasons we had that pool, definitely not worth it.

MolsonExport · #**2264** Posted **Nov 5, 2024, 3:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I don't miss mine at all. When we looked for a house in west London in 2009, it either had to have a pool or a lot and price that accommodated us putting a pool in. We got the house in Byron and put in the pool in 2010. Cost us a little under $40,000 then. Our taxes went up $500 year. House insurance went up. I cant even guess how much it cost us to run and heat the thing, but I'm guessing $1500 a year. We replaced the heater, pump and salt generator. It needed a liner towards the end. Sold the house in the winter of 22/23 and the new owners took the pool out that first year. Don't blame them a bit. Sure, we got use out of it, but the novelty wore off fast. Kids were 8 when we put the pool in, and I bet my son didn't go in it once after about 4 years. My daughter was a bit more social with school friends but even still, it was rare she used it. Really, my wife was the main user of it, and all she did was float around and read. She said she could do that in a Walmart inflatable lol.

Man, when I think of the money I sunk into that thing over the 13 seasons we had that pool, definitely not worth it.

I am in my 11th year of backyard inground pool ownership. so far: replaced some plumbing, replaced the heater, replaced the pump (3 times), replaced the salt cell, replaced the motherboard, got some wiring done....

My steps are needing repair/replacement, my filter is getting way past its best-before date, and my liner is getting older by the hour.

Plus getting the pool opened/closed each year is nearly $1K. I have stopped paying a company to open the pool (I figured it out last year), but I am wary of closing it myself (given the massive costs involved should your pipes freeze).

I am the one that uses it most (my kids used it daily when they were children but now, at 18/16, they are much less interested), and I am stuck with all the maintenance.

Rico Rommheim · #**2265** Posted **Nov 5, 2024, 4:23 PM**

From the REM again

DSC03617 copy by Foofoo MacShoe, on Flickr

DSC03623 copy by Foofoo MacShoe, on Flickr

from the bridge

DSC03632 copy by Foofoo MacShoe, on Flickr

Acajack · #**2266** Posted **Nov 5, 2024, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Plus getting the pool opened/closed each year is nearly $1K. I have stopped paying a company to open the pool (I figured it out last year), but I am wary of closing it myself (given the massive costs involved should your pipes freeze).
.

This seems very expensive. I haven't had it done by someone in years but when I used to it was 125-200 for each job. I'd assume it's in the 250 range each these days. Not 500.

Note that if you screw up with the pipes and they freeze and break, it's covered by your homeowners' insurance. Generally no questions asked.

It happened to me once though I am not sure if it was actually my fault or due to an exceptionally deep freeze.

MolsonExport · #**2267** Posted **Nov 5, 2024, 5:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acajack

This seems very expensive. I haven't had it done by someone in years but when I used to it was 125-200 for each job. I'd assume it's in the 250 range each these days. Not 500.

Note that if you screw up with the pipes and they freeze and break, it's covered by your homeowners' insurance. Generally no questions asked.

It happened to me once though I am not sure if it was actually my fault or due to an exceptionally deep freeze.

the costs of pool opening/closing have tripled over the timeline that I have owned my pool. That despite the fact that I only do partial opening/closings (as there is a bylaw here about raising/lowering water levels of saltwater pools)

theman23 · #**2268** Posted **Nov 5, 2024, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipster duck

My point with both the oncologist and the harp teacher example is that a major city has hundreds of thousands of people each of whom define what they want out of life differently, and it's impossible for technocrats to plan for this.

This is why masterplanned cities in the middle of nowhere don't work. Even in China, they build these but they end up being ghost cities.

I think the original post said somewhere between Toronto and Lake Simcoe, with someone offering up Orangeville as a potential site. It really wouldn’t be that bad - you build the highway, the roads, sewage, commercial zoning, etc. You only need a hospital with an ER and a CT scanner to start (they may already have one). Everyone that wants harp lessons can just pay someone from the GTA and they can attend their cancer appointments at Trillium or UHN or whatever.

someone123 · #**2269** Posted **Nov 5, 2024, 7:44 PM**

I'm skeptical of master-planned cities but I still think we've lost some flexibility in building new infrastructure and developing urban areas, and that's limited options compared to what we could have.

In a slightly better version of this country I think we'd be building more highways, bridges, and rail lines out into less developed areas and some of those would develop into new cities. More commonly, towns would grow into cities, but sometimes transport infrastructure really would open up entirely new areas.

For example, in BC, the highway and transit connections to the Fraser Valley from Vancouver really suck and places like Abbotsford and Chilliwack have not developed in a very interesting way. There are also a bunch of islands that could have bridges and don't, and likely some forested or mountainous areas that could be developed but aren't (there's nothing wrong with preserving wilderness but BC is ~90%+ wilderness). NS is pretty similar. Around Halifax there are hundreds of lakes and most area not developed because they're protected in some way or not accessible. I think it would be more sensible to choose some areas to develop and some not to develop, but since the 90's or so it's been closer to a blanket ban on development everywhere.

harls · #**2270** Posted **Nov 6, 2024, 12:31 AM**

Nouvellecosse · #**2271** Posted **Nov 6, 2024, 2:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

People are apprehensive on development as even the best intended developer still has to please their investors. That doesn't make them NIMBYs as the crazy cat lady. There's no misunderstanding. Every post there's something like busy bodies homeowners causing housing inaffordability or the interior square footage of a house which is reflected in lot coverage, lot setbacks, number of floors or the basis of city planning shouldn't be a neighbour's business.

We're not talking about the interior size of a house. It's apartments that people around here refer to as shoeboxes and the size of individual apartments has little relation to the building exterior. You could have an apartment building with 4 large apartments, 6 medium-sized apartments, or 8 small apartments in a building of the same footprint. Or you could subdivide an existing house into 2 or more small apartments with the house having little or no exterior change depending on where they locate the entrances. And you could also have a 4-unit building with large units or a 4-unit building with small units and the one with large units would have a much bigger exterior needing either a larger lot or the same lot with a higher FAR. Yet people denigrate the small units by calling them shoeboxes but not the large units. So clearly using unit size as a proxy for those other things like lot coverage, height or set backs is silly when one could simply consider those things directly.

Ironically, an apartment building or subdivided house with 4 small units would fit much better into detached house areas than one with larger units since it would need a larger exterior. The only explanation for people insulting the one with small units rather than the one with large units is either classism (ie, "those people" can't afford a larger home so they're beneath us) or general anti-development negativity ( ie, "developers are bad because I don't like small units so let's keep them out until they build what I like rather than what the future occupants want and/or can afford").

And yes, there is a misunderstanding if you're claiming that I'm against anyone having an opinion on planning matters outside their own property. Because clearly that's one of the main things we - including me - do here on the forum.