Winnipeg Construction IX

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Riverman

This is just plain old discrimination. There areas should get better service than the inner city because they pay more taxes.

No kidding, how do you tell people living in an newer more affluent area they don't get bus service and how does that fly in the face of the green/carbon reduction movement or even the notion of promoting public transportation for all!?!

[esquire]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

No kidding, how do you tell people living in an newer more affluent area they don't get bus service and how does that fly in the face of the green/carbon reduction movement or even the notion of promoting public transportation for all!?!

I agree, carbon taxes should be jacked up to improve public transportation!

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

This is not how public services work, nor is it how they should. Considering how inefficiently suburbs use resources like power, water and sewage, nor is what you said even really true.

Suburbs have newer housing with homes built better, more insulation, better windows and doors etc.

Older area's for the most part have homes more prone to fires, more calls for police services than newer homes, more work needed to repair and replace infrastructure like sewer and water lines etc. Don't say it costs the city more to service newer areas when in fact it doesn't!

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Suburbs have newer housing with homes built better, more insulation, better windows and doors etc.

Older area's for the most part have homes more prone to fires, more calls for police services than newer homes, more work needed to repair and replace infrastructure like sewer and water lines etc. Don't say it costs the city more to service newer areas when in fact it doesn't!

That's a separate issue from low-density housing using pipe/road/whatever infrastructure to below its capacity and construction costs.

Older/more urban neighbourhoods being older and having to go through routine maintenance is not an argument. New subdivisions will have to do the same one day.

[Roger Strong]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

That's a separate issue from low-density housing using pipe/road/whatever infrastructure to below its capacity and construction costs.

I doubt that Sage Creek is much different than St. James. Both have much the same mix of high and low density.

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Older/more urban neighbourhoods being older and having to go through routine maintenance is not an argument. New subdivisions will have to do the same one day.

Older neighbourhoods still have metal water mains and thus require more maintenance.

Older neighbourhoods still have above-ground hydro and thus require more maintenance.

Older neighbourhoods have back lanes and thus require more maintenance and plowing.

Older neighbourhoods all have combined sewers, most of which the city has been ordered to replace by 2045. You can be damned sure that new neighborhoods' tax dollars will be going towards that.

[1ajs]

sewers is paid for by water and waste fees sept the stupid city keeps robing them

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

sewers is paid for by water and waste fees sept the stupid city keeps robing them

Damn straight, it's almost criminal how money that was supposed to be used/saved for water and sewer upgrades gone dumped into general revenue!

[optimusREIM]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Damn straight, it's almost criminal how money that was supposed to be used/saved for water and sewer upgrades gone dumped into general revenue!

Gotta keep the cops firefighters and pencilpushers paid. The people's roads and sewers can 🞵🞵🞵🞵 it.

[buzzg]

Maybe they should start writing jaywalking and crosswalk encroachment tickets to pay for the sewers!

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Suburbs have newer housing with homes built better, more insulation, better windows and doors etc.

Older area's for the most part have homes more prone to fires, more calls for police services than newer homes, more work needed to repair and replace infrastructure like sewer and water lines etc. Don't say it costs the city more to service newer areas when in fact it doesn't!

My experience is that the new homes are not built to nearly the quality that most homes were built prior to the 1970s, the homes built in the immediate postwar period being a notable exception. I know of many people with homes built in the 80s and 90s or even newer, that are experiencing structural and other problems.

As for efficiency, true, generally newer houses are better insulated, but older houses can also be made much more efficient as well, most especially by installing a HE furnace and installing or improving insulation. Wooden windows that are properly repaired and maintained have a far longer lifespan than the new plastic windows, are not by any means inefficient and are far more attractive.

Public services are more expensive to provide to low-density subdivisions than to higher density areas. In fact, I would argue, as have many others, that the inner city and the inner suburbs are subsidizing the new auto-dependent suburbs. The reality is that this city should have put the brakes on sprawl decades ago, but it is better to start now rather than later. It is very disturbing to imagine how this city will afford all of the infrastructure repairs that are coming in the not too distant future when the 1950s and 1960s infrastructure (just a huge portion of Winnipeg's overall infrastructure) needs replacement.

Also, what happens when, as many are predicting, today's relatively affluent suburbs become tomorrow's disadvantaged areas, as is the case in many European cities and is now being seen in North American cities such as New York, San Francisco and Vancouver where the poor are being pushed further and further out? Winnipeg is still very much a city of the 1960s, but that will change one day. Who will want the oversized McMansions in 20 years when the baby boomers as a generation are fully retired?

[drew]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

Suburbs have newer housing with homes built better, more insulation, better windows and doors etc.

Older area's for the most part have homes more prone to fires, more calls for police services than newer homes, more work needed to repair and replace infrastructure like sewer and water lines etc. Don't say it costs the city more to service newer areas when in fact it doesn't!

Everything has a life span - including sewer and water lines. The replacement of sewer and water is a maintenance issue, and should have been planned and budgeted for. Just like Bridgwater Forrest should be planning on it in the early 2100's. Same argument for roads, power supply, etc. etc.

At this stage, it is a bit premature to make any points regarding infrastructure when older areas still have functioning 100-year old infrastructure. We have no idea whether or not what is installed today in new areas will have the same durability as compared to pre-war houses. I very much doubt it.

I also would seriously question the long term durability of homes built within the last 30 to 40 years. Besides the foundations, I would think we won't see nearly as many of them intact around their 100 year birthdays as we would with older homes - especially if any of these new suburbs ever suffer from a change over between middle class and lower income owners/tenants.

Efficiency is great, but these new homes are certainly not as durable and capable of withstanding the the rigours of time that say my 1906 house can.

For example, my house just got re-shingled for the third time last year. The windows got replaced (mostly for purely aesthetic reasons) 110 years after they were first installed. My siding is original. My doors are original. Up until 2014 - the light fixtures were still original (again aesthetics). We are still operating the 1960s boiler that is only the second boiler this house has every had. The flooring besides what we replaced in renos for the kitchen and bathroom is all original as well.

Everything now a days has about a 10-25 year lifespan. That isn't the case with older houses.

[headhorse]

there is a 5468796 sign up on that Graham building that had all it's windows removed (next to Starbucks). no idea what's happening.

[buzzg]

Originally Posted by rrskylar

No kidding, how do you tell people living in an newer more affluent area they don't get bus service and how does that fly in the face of the green/carbon reduction movement or even the notion of promoting public transportation for all!?!

Originally Posted by headhorse

there is a 5468796 sign up on that Graham building that had all it's windows removed (next to Starbucks). no idea what's happening.

Interesting. It wasn't updated too long ago, but the windows do appear to be fairly old. It's a nice building, a treatment like the office upgrade nearby on St. Mary would look amazing. Maybe it's not a coincidence that Pictures, Frames, and More moved... perhaps they landed a big tenant?

[rrskylar]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

My experience is that the new homes are not built to nearly the quality that most homes were built prior to the 1970s, the homes built in the immediate postwar period being a notable exception. I know of many people with homes built in the 80s and 90s or even newer, that are experiencing structural and other problems.

As for efficiency, true, generally newer houses are better insulated, but older houses can also be made much more efficient as well, most especially by installing a HE furnace and installing or improving insulation. Wooden windows that are properly repaired and maintained have a far longer lifespan than the new plastic windows, are not by any means inefficient and are far more attractive.

Public services are more expensive to provide to low-density subdivisions than to higher density areas. In fact, I would argue, as have many others, that the inner city and the inner suburbs are subsidizing the new auto-dependent suburbs. The reality is that this city should have put the brakes on sprawl decades ago, but it is better to start now rather than later. It is very disturbing to imagine how this city will afford all of the infrastructure repairs that are coming in the not too distant future when the 1950s and 1960s infrastructure (just a huge portion of Winnipeg's overall infrastructure) needs replacement.

Also, what happens when, as many are predicting, today's relatively affluent suburbs become tomorrow's disadvantaged areas, as is the case in many European cities and is now being seen in North American cities such as New York, San Francisco and Vancouver where the poor are being pushed further and further out? Winnipeg is still very much a city of the 1960s, but that will change one day. Who will want the oversized McMansions in 20 years when the baby boomers as a generation are fully retired?

You could make the same argument comparing today's cars vs. those from the 60's where those cars were made mostly of steel and were solid except for the fact that they weren't safe or efficient unlike the lightweight cars of today made of mostly plastic parts and tinfoil thin sheet metal and yet are surprisingly safe and for the most part pretty efficient and last much longer!

You know the old saying they don't build them like they used to, well thank god because homes built today are better and superior in many ways to anything built pre-1980, 2x6 construction, better insulation, triple pane windows, high efficiency furnaces, better foundations with proper drainage, better electrical, better plumbing, no asbestos or lead paint, etc., etc.

[borkborkbork]

Originally Posted by drew

Efficiency is great, but these new homes are certainly not as durable and capable of withstanding the the rigours of time that say my 1906 house can.

Survivorship bias is a hell of a drug.

[buzzg]

LOL this guy actually thinks the world revolves around him. What a lunatic – the city's already gone out of their way to please you.

Councillors reject Piazza De Nardi's request for temporary traffic light
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/piazza-denardi-traff-c-light-denied-1.4510992

[drew]

Originally Posted by borkborkbork

Survivorship bias is a hell of a drug.

Last time I checked, the homes of the older areas of Winnipeg are generally intact and structurally sound. My house is certainly not the exception within Wolseley for example.

From wiki regarding construction and "survivorship bias"

Just as new buildings are being built every day and older structures are constantly torn down, the story of most civil and urban architecture involves a process of constant renewal, renovation, and revolution. Only the most (subjectively, but popularly determined) beautiful, most useful, and most structurally sound buildings survive from one generation to the next. This creates another selection effect where the ugliest and weakest buildings of history have long been eradicated from existence and thus the public view, and so it leaves the visible impression, seemingly correct but factually flawed, that all buildings in the past were both more beautiful and better built.

Maybe I went a little over board, but if you took any new area in Winnipeg, change it over from middle class single family owned homes - to lower income rentals (similar to what occurred in Wolseley, West End, Armstrong point, etc.) and then came back 60 years later - there is simply no way the houses built today would last as well as what we built years ago. They certainly wouldn't last long enough for said area to experience any kind of rejuvenation.

It's not rocket science, or some better way we used to build the homes, it just comes down to better materials that were far more readily available and affordable, more use of solid wood versus fabricated OSB, plywood, buffalo board, etc. But hey, if that's survivorship bias, guilty as charged. I mean its a great area where I live, but I wouldn't say its the most beautiful area...

[Spocket]

We won't know how newer housing stands the test of time until that time has passed. This is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 into the wind because we all know the drawbacks of newer developments but we can't say that all the foundations are substandard or that the services were of poor quality. In fact, it stands to reason that everything concerning construction and materials would be better but I can't say that either. Comparing what were once quasi-mansions paid for by the affluent of bygone days to new economy-class housing is hardly a reasonable comparison. Those people paid for and got housing that was meant to stand for a very long time and it appears that it has. On the other hand, where is the area where all the houses are falling into the ground due to poor construction and materials? There's always going to be examples of such things but unless somebody can show me an entire neighbourhood soon to be swallowed up by shifting soil or something, I'd say this is all tilting at windmills.

[bomberjet]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

Gotta keep the cops firefighters and pencilpushers paid. The people's roads and sewers can 🞵🞵🞵🞵 it.

Pretty much it right here.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Spocket

We won't know how newer housing stands the test of time until that time has passed. This is 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 into the wind because we all know the drawbacks of newer developments but we can't say that all the foundations are substandard or that the services were of poor quality. In fact, it stands to reason that everything concerning construction and materials would be better but I can't say that either. Comparing what were once quasi-mansions paid for by the affluent of bygone days to new economy-class housing is hardly a reasonable comparison. Those people paid for and got housing that was meant to stand for a very long time and it appears that it has. On the other hand, where is the area where all the houses are falling into the ground due to poor construction and materials? There's always going to be examples of such things but unless somebody can show me an entire neighbourhood soon to be swallowed up by shifting soil or something, I'd say this is all tilting at windmills.

a house is only as good as ur contractors building it and what materials they choose to use. if u build it proper and take the time to do it right the first time things can last a long time. same for even old homes. theres a reason why we have building codes.....