Winnipeg Construction IX - Page 367

bomberjet · #**7321** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 7:52 PM**

They'll be two storey narrow houses if I was a betting man. Lots of that going on in the City. Some places already have two lots that were combined into 1 for the original home. Lots of this going on in St. B and even out in the Parker area from my recent travels. Some of this in NK too.

Such as 2 - 20' lots make a 40' lot. Then there are some older places that have 3 - 20' lots making a 60'. So they have a large side yard and such.

buzzg · #**7322** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 7:53 PM**

Seems to be happening lots of places.

Curious – if you own a double lot (used to be 2, now 1) do you need to re-apply to build two houses there?

bomberjet · #**7323** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 7:54 PM**

Probably.

esquire · #**7324** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by roccerfeller

It might be becoming more common now here, I used to see it all the time out west

It's done wonders to rejuvenate aging neighbourhoods in Calgary

There has been more and more of it going on in Winnipeg in recent years. I used to live in Riverview and in the years that I lived there, there were always at least one or two infill homes going up at any given point.

Riverview and Lord Roberts are real hotbeds for that sort of thing, but it's happening all over the city, most commonly in areas with a lot of pre-WWII housing.

dmacc · #**7325** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

They'll be two storey narrow houses if I was a betting man. Lots of that going on in the City. Some places already have two lots that were combined into 1 for the original home. Lots of this going on in St. B and even out in the Parker area from my recent travels. Some of this in NK too.

Such as 2 - 20' lots make a 40' lot. Then there are some older places that have 3 - 20' lots making a 60'. So they have a large side yard and such.

There are 20' lots? I thought the smallest a lot could be was 25'.

So would you say this is generally a good thing for revitalizing a neighbourhood?

bomberjet · #**7326** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:09 PM**

Maybe it's 25' I don't know. Either way narrow lots. I just did some looking on my coffee break and theres a bunch of them strewn about in northeast Winnipeg. Most of them are just regular houses on 2 lots. Some of them have 3 lots with the side yard thing. My lot is a normal 40'. Two doors down the lots split into the narrow ones mid block. A house nearby actually has 4 lots, but two are very narrow.

Edit: Ya they're 25' lots.

esquire · #**7327** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmacc

So would you say this is generally a good thing for revitalizing a neighbourhood?

In the case of Riverview/Lord Roberts, it's a great thing. It tends to replace the worst, most run down old houses with nicer new ones.

I realize that in places like River Heights it can cause more friction as people there tend to be bigger spenders... tearing down a modest older home to build a huge beast of an infill home has led to some battles.

bomberjet · #**7328** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:13 PM**

I'm not sure what measures are in place to control what the houses look like. In new areas there are standards for home finishes.

If every new house going up does whatever they want, ti can look disorganized. One house is just pink stucco, with the house next door being siding. Then some brick thrown in.

In general though, replacing one house with two increases density, tax dollars, etc. That can only be good IMO.

trueviking · #**7329** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:15 PM**

we were chatting here about ludicrous road widening easements the city has on streets across the city. I have now run into it three times. Once at Red River College on route 90. Once on Ellice Avenue and get this....on main street. MAIN STREET!!!

All three instances, the property owner is unable to build to the property line because of some dream from the 1960's that we will add lanes to all the roads, once every building has been demolished.

trueviking · #**7330** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:17 PM**

........

bomberjet · #**7331** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:17 PM**

Isn't there same thing on Osborne. The new building are set back from the old. I get it but not in those type of areas..

dmacc · #**7332** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by esquire

In the case of Riverview/Lord Roberts, it's a great thing. It tends to replace the worst, most run down old houses with nicer new ones.

I realize that in places like River Heights it can cause more friction as people there tend to be bigger spenders... tearing down a modest older home to build a huge beast of an infill home has led to some battles.

In the case of one of the lots on my street, I was told that the site that is now being torn down was supposed to be converted years ago but one of the nieghbours fought it and won. Now that that person has moved they are trying to do it again. It doesn't bother me and if it improves the area then all the better. Maybe it will help property values.

buzzg · #**7333** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

we were chatting here about ludicrous road widening easements the city has on streets across the city. I have now run into it three times. Once at Red River College on route 90. Once on Ellice Avenue and get this....on main street. MAIN STREET!!!

All three instances, the property owner is unable to build to the property line because of some dream from the 1960's that we will add lanes to all the roads, once every building has been demolished.

Where on Main Street was this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Isn't there same thing on Osborne. The new building are set back from the old. I get it but not in those type of areas..

Yes. That's why the former TD strip is set back like that. It's ridiculous – lots of those buildings will be there for another 100 years!

esquire · #**7334** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmacc

In the case of one of the lots on my street, I was told that the site that is now being torn down was supposed to be converted years ago but one of the nieghbours fought it and won. Now that that person has moved they are trying to do it again. It doesn't bother me and if it improves the area then all the better. Maybe it will help property values.

A lot of new infill homes does convey the impression of a neighbourhood on the upswing. So I think it certainly doesn't hurt property values and in all likelihood it helps them. Plus it does create another pool of buyers of low-end, run down properties beyond just slumlords.

Someone mentioned the phenomenon of 40' lots being split in 2. I can see that being problematic, my previous home was an infill on a 25' lot and it's hard to imagine getting much narrower than that although I realize that some are. I could see it being a bit odd if you have a block full of 40' lots and then having a couple of 20' lots jammed in there. Personally I'm OK with it but I can see why others might not like it.

buzzg · #**7335** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:53 PM**

It also adds to the (shrinking) density, which is good for local businesses.

bomberjet · #**7336** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:57 PM**

I checked and the narrow lots are 25'. However the larger single lots like mine are 40' so couldn't be split in two. Seems like a bit of a mish mash.

dmacc · #**7337** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 8:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzg

It also adds to the (shrinking) density, which is good for local businesses.

I'm not following. I understand it adds to the density. What do you mean it adds to the "shrinking"?

Ando · #**7338** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 9:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmacc

She spoke on CJOB earlier this week and spoke about reducing an infrastructure deficit that included Parks, community centres, water, sewage and roads. She wants to fix issues with police, I hope she means the fact that we spend huge dollars for little result. She sounds a lot like Pallister and his value based spending. It wasn't a full platform but we're still 17ish weeks away.

I'm pretty confident you've made your mind up so why not declare now?

buzzg · #**7339** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 9:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmacc

I'm not following. I understand it adds to the density. What do you mean it adds to the "shrinking"?

I'm saying it adds to the density. However, average household size is shrinking as people are having less kids than ever – so it's important, if not crucial, to have this type of infill and add to the density.

esquire · #**7340** Posted **Jun 21, 2018, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by trueviking

we were chatting here about ludicrous road widening easements the city has on streets across the city. I have now run into it three times. Once at Red River College on route 90. Once on Ellice Avenue and get this....on main street. MAIN STREET!!!

All three instances, the property owner is unable to build to the property line because of some dream from the 1960's that we will add lanes to all the roads, once every building has been demolished.

Forget Portage and Main, this is something that needs to be a civic election issue. Let's scrap these vestiges of the 1950s that haunt us like the ghosts of urban planning's past.

Get rid of it and bring back proper urban street walls on our arteries.