Winnipeg Construction IX

[Curmudgeon]

Just on the visual, that has to be a 50 foot frontage. Could easily fit an 1,800+ square foot bungalow and an even slightly larger American foursquare, perhaps even with a wraparound verandah. Would look stunning.

[esquire]

That can't be 50 feet.

[pmuhar]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Just on the visual, that has to be a 50 foot frontage. Could easily fit an 1,800+ square foot bungalow and an even slightly larger American foursquare, perhaps even with a wraparound verandah. Would look stunning.

Keep in mind the pictures I posted are not the actual proposed houses but are just similar in style.

And yes a 50ft lot with an 1800+sqft bungalow would be a fantastic home, the economics jut dont make sense. That house on the 50ft lot would be priced at $550,000+, and would definitely not blend in with the character of the neighborhood where all the other homes are 1000-1200 sq ft. Who wants to have a $550,000 home on a street where every other home sells for under $300.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

I wouldn't want them to look like the old homes. I was meaning when someone builds an infill, are there any standards as to what it should look like? Or is it just whatever the builder wants.

I'm somewhere in the middle of wanting to have a standard, but at the same time letting them go organically. In some neighbourhoods all of the houses on a particular block are being replaced. some are 1 storey, some 2. they look completely different. Is there a strategy on the cities end for this type of stuff?

I for sure don't want faux 1920's new builds, or something like that.

In terms of infill development I think the biggest things to respect are the historic set backs from all four sides, so including the space between houses and the overall house size, ie you aren't building a three story house in a bungalow only community or a bungalow in an almost exclusive three story home area. A new build is always going to not match the existing homes but it doesn't need to be a tall bungalow with a smaller front yard and minimal side yards amongst streets of historic three story homes for example. Instead what about a two story home with the tall basement (adding about 2' about ground), a 12' main floor (~5' extra) and a 9' second floor (~2' extra). In other words a modern two-story home with a height similar to an older three story home.

I know someone that lives in a modern in fill home in Winnipeg. You can tell it is a new home but it isn't glaring out of character for the neighbourhood either. That is the approach I think most people want to see.

[esquire]

^ Riverview is starting to see an increasing number of three storey homes being built. There are some old 2 1/2 storey homes that are quite big, but the new builds tower over the old ones. IMO it isn't something that should be discouraged... it's part of the natural revitalization of the area, something which is sorely needed as many of the homes are approaching the 100 year mark and getting to the point where they need to be replaced. (They could have lasted longer but many have simply not been properly maintained over the years...)

[drew]

^ the new equivalent to the the existing 2.5 storey houses are taller simply to accommodate the various Code minimums for ceiling heights, stairwells, etc.

They are tough to do as attractively - or maybe seamlessly - as their 100 year old neighbours.

I find they tend to look bulky.

Here is an example in Wolseley.

I am not a fan.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by drew

^ the new equivalent to the the existing 2.5 storey houses are taller simply to accommodate the various Code minimums for ceiling heights, stairwells, etc.

They are tough to do as attractively - or maybe seamlessly - as their 100 year old neighbours.

I find they tend to look bulky.

Here is an example in Wolseley.

I am not a fan.

That's really unfortunate. The ubiquitous in central Winnipeg 2 1/2 storey design blends reasonably well with the adjacent houses and it could have been a complimentary addition, but the windows are awful, the top one is offset, why?, and there is zero detail for the upper half, for example to delineate the peak. The deck belongs in a back yard. Too bad the neighbours didn't fight that with more zeal.

In too many cases anything goes here. No development is preferable to bad development.

[cheswick]

Originally Posted by drew

^ the new equivalent to the the existing 2.5 storey houses are taller simply to accommodate the various Code minimums for ceiling heights, stairwells, etc.

They are tough to do as attractively - or maybe seamlessly - as their 100 year old neighbours.

I find they tend to look bulky.

Here is an example in Wolseley.

I am not a fan.

That's ugly as sin, but don't think it's height has much to do with it. It could be the same height and designed better to fit in with the neighbourhood.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by drew

^ the new equivalent to the the existing 2.5 storey houses are taller simply to accommodate the various Code minimums for ceiling heights, stairwells, etc.

What is the current minimum code for ceiling heights in new residential construction? It has been increasingly common to see 10' and higher ceilings in common areas and 9' or 10' ceilings in bedrooms. Just a guess but the older homes seem to be around the 7' to 8' ceiling height range throughout with even less in older basements. It isn't uncommon now to have 10' ceilings in a basement, partly to increase the basement height above grade to allow larger windows and more light.

[bomberjet]

Finished ceiling height is 8'. That's standard on all homes for some time. You can upgrade to 9' for the extra cost. Or go even higher to 10'. Even in old homes ceiling are 8'.

Basement ceiling height is another story. Old homes seem to be a free for all. New builds are 8'.

[LilZebra]

A few weeks ago someone on here said that there would be several announcements in the next few weeks for mid-rise level new buildings.


We have to wait until the New Year now, since there is precious little left in this year?

[asher__jo]

Originally Posted by drew

^ the new equivalent to the the existing 2.5 storey houses are taller simply to accommodate the various Code minimums for ceiling heights, stairwells, etc.

They are tough to do as attractively - or maybe seamlessly - as their 100 year old neighbours.

I find they tend to look bulky.

Here is an example in Wolseley.

I am not a fan.

The reason it's unattractive is not because of the height or current zoning. It's because an inexpensively designed infill.

[drew]

Originally Posted by bomberjet

Finished ceiling height is 8'. That's standard on all homes for some time. You can upgrade to 9' for the extra cost. Or go even higher to 10'. Even in old homes ceiling are 8'.

Basement ceiling height is another story. Old homes seem to be a free for all. New builds are 8'.

Its not just the ceiling height though, its the head height and pitch of the staircases too.

Basically these old houses (my own included) just developed attic space, and shoehorned in staircases.

[drew]

Originally Posted by asher__jo

The reason it's unattractive is not because of the height or current zoning. It's because an inexpensively designed infill.

There are many reasons - but to me, the details of the exterior of this house mean that it almost certainly had an architect. Or at least someone that was trying too hard. And from what I understand, it was not inexpensive.

Here is another one. Not a 3-storey, but a replacement for a house that burned down when version 1.0 of the apartment beside it burned down a few years back.

The original house was a typical 2.5 storey, with a great porch. And now this. Blech.

[Wpg_Guy]

Originally Posted by drew

There are many reasons - but to me, the details of the exterior of this house mean that it almost certainly had an architect. Or at least someone that was trying too hard. And from what I understand, it was not inexpensive.

Here is another one. Not a 3-storey, but a replacement for a house that burned down when version 1.0 of the apartment beside it burned down a few years back.

The original house was a typical 2.5 storey, with a great porch. And now this. Blech.

I really like that house lol.

[OTA in Winnipeg]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

I really like that house lol.

So do I. It's built in a way that they have the entire roof as a complete other room. Brilliant. That should be the only way to build any house.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Wpg_Guy

I really like that house lol.

Me too. In my view, houses like that are a model for infill development in inner city neighbourhoods. Design like that allows you to get a decent-sized house on a small lot... it puts the inner city on a more equal footing relative to the suburbs for people interested in a newer home.

Here are a couple of houses near where I used to live. This pair is both three storeys, but the third storey is set back a bit which softens their presence.

https://goo.gl/maps/9NprVmwp7Xv

Older neighbourhoods will inevitably change over time... the blocks with 100 year old homes can't remain intact forever, especially considering that a lot of homes have been neglected over the years and aren't always worth the cost of full restorations. Newer designs like these ones help to revitalize those areas.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^Yikes those two are giving me the heebie-jeebies. They are definitely giving the terribly ugly infill in Regina a run for its money. Why don't they have front doors? Where are mail deliveries done for the house on the right?

Some work well, some don't. If we want a 0 for sense of community then sure, build the two that Esquire posted, but those are beyond terrible for me.

[esquire]

^ The doors and mailboxes are on the side. But how do the houses hinder the sense of community? I think that depends way more on the occupants than on the built form of the house itself.

[drew]

Google Streetview doesn't have the completed look of this house. It's close, but the now "complete" front entrance of the house is completely out of sorts for the area.

Wolseley is a "front yard" community.

This house has probably the ugliest and most poorly thought out front entrance in the area - and it's brand new.

But either way, I stand by my opinion. Blech.