Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[Harrij]

Originally Posted by 240glt

That's a bit apples & oranges is it not ? Capilano mall is bordered on all sides by 6 lane arterial roads, we're talking about small scale residential infill in mature neighbourhoods

I don't think anyone actually likes walking or driving in the mall parking lot. And I think your assumption that those who accept suburban design "lack exposure" is way off the mark. Where we live is by quite a wide margin the most suburban I have ever lived, in any of th cities I have lived (Van & Cal) but At this point in my life I love it, so that premise is patently false I'd say

Fair enough. I was unfairly generalizing a bit there while going slightly off topic. I was referring to some of the more general anti-urbanist sentiment expressed above, and while I didn't disagree with all of it, I think urbanism and suburbanism could co-exist better in Edmonton than it currently does.

For the record, I don't believe lot splitting and replacing with expensive new skinny builds improves anything for the neighbourhood other than having a couple more nice looking homes. It barely addressees density or helping middle or lower income residents in the community.

At the same time, I'm less bothered about it wrecking the sanctity of the neighbourhood because most of the houses in cap/gold bar are just okay mid century builds. I guess I'm biased as a young man looking to move somewhere more urban.

[240glt]

^ and that's fair. As a young man I enjoyed living in a very urban area of Vancouver, and then downtown Calgary. But, as you get older your priorities change. So there is the reason that urban and suburban should be able to coexist, because as people's lives change, their housing locations and preferences change.

I absolutely love my area, because I am in a mature suburban neighborhood surrounded by nice homes and steps to the river valley, yet literally a 10 minute commute from my front door to my downtown office. I do have a grocery store and a few other amenities within easy walking distance but being surrounded by restaurants and bars and cafes is just not something I really care about all that much. That's why there is a kerfuffle in these areas, because more people want to live in residential areas that are closer to their work, and many folks who have lived in the area for eons like the way it is and don't want it to change

Trust me this fight goes on everywhere. Even in Parkdale when I was acting as the Civics director (now just a "consultant") where infill was and still is very much needed, people fought it tooth & nail.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by 240glt

No one is forcing a future buyer to buy the property either

And that in itself is a problem: You're limiting who may be interested in buying the property in the future, basically reducing its value and making it harder to sell. The person who put the covenant in place might be just fine with that, but chances are they won't be the one selling such a property - more likely to be their kids or kin in an estate sale.

Let that sink in for a moment.

[noodlenoodle]

Can't believe this is being trotted out in an infill discussion.

[Harrij]

^^^ oh believe me I think the area is great as someone who grew up in Fulton Place. And I don't want it to turn into Oliver anytime soon and start ripping up all the old SFHs.

Its just a slight shame it's such a pretty and central neighbourhood surrounded by some pretty stale and/or shoddy commercial or higher density buildings. I think there's some room for improvement regarding things that aren't houses or green space.

It lacks that bit of charm that I like about Parkdale or Forest Heights. I guess it's just that difference between some of the nicer pre war neighbourhoods and nicer 50s/60s areas in Edmonton that's always bothered me a bit.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Daveography

And that in itself is a problem: You're limiting who may be interested in buying the property in the future, basically reducing its value and making it harder to sell. The person who put the covenant in place might be just fine with that, but chances are they won't be the one selling such a property - more likely to be their kids or kin in an estate sale.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Honestly why should I be concerned ? As noted above my dad put a covenant on a side yard that he bought when the neighbors property was split up and sold in a divorce dispute to keep someone from building a massive Vancouver Special on it. It pretty much means that the side yard will need to be sold with my parents house as a package, or back to the property it was originally divided from. it's not my parents job to ensure that their offspring are capable of realizing maximum returns for their kids through their real estate investments. They wanted the privacy and the beauty of the park-like yard, and my folks are very active within the local historical society, live in a historic neighbourhood and by doing what he did, ensures that our house and the next one over never have some giant monstrosity wedged between them. (Vernon's city council is as inept as Edmonton's, so like many here in Edmonton, he took matters into his own hands) Frankly if my dad wanted to spend all his money on magic beans that's none of my business

[Daveography]

^ It's fine that you're not concerned, but not everyone is you.

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

Can't believe this is being trotted out in an infill discussion.

Oh please.

[240glt]

^ that goes both ways, you know. If people are concerned about maximizing their return on their parents estates that's fine too. A little ugly, but fine. But I think many have a greater moral compass than that

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ It's fine that you're not concerned, but not everyone is you.

It's fine that you're concerned but not everyone is you.

Originally Posted by Daveography

Oh please.

You legit made a "won't someone think of the children" argument & got called out on it. Don't wanna get called out on a terrible, terrible, specious argument? Don't make terrible, terrible, specious arguments.

[Boris2k7]

One's "moral compass" is equivalent with the size of their lawn. lol.

[240glt]

^. Lol, no. My sis barely scrapes a living working for the CBC in Calgary, and lives in a 500sf apartment. She'd agree with everything I just wrote

[Landlocked]

Originally Posted by Boris2k7

One's "moral compass" is equivalent with the size of their lawn. lol.

I've heard that, but the formula is more along the lines of:

Moral Compass Index = ((#sq.ft lawn)-(avg. # dandelions/sq.yd)^3)*(1+(# Yards in Bloom nominations))

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ that goes both ways, you know. If people are concerned about maximizing their return on their parents estates that's fine too. A little ugly, but fine. But I think many have a greater moral compass than that

I'm thinking about it in terms of parents thinking about how it will affect their children when they're gone, not about children greedily waiting for their parents to die so they can sell the property.

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

You legit made a "won't someone think of the children" argument & got called out on it. Don't wanna get called out on a terrible, terrible, specious argument? Don't make terrible, terrible, specious arguments.

I can't believe I'm even bothering to debate this with you, but no, it's not a "won't someone think of the children" argument. Those refer to using vulnerable little kids as a meatshield against something you don't like.

My argument is that you're more likely to be financially harming your descendants - presumably adults at the point of the parents' death - by putting in a covenant like this.

Christ, noodle.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by Daveography

Christ, noodle.

Oh, I got your terrible argument before I put up my picture. I just thought it was stupid & didn't warrant more than a stupid response.

Keep on ragin'!

[etown]

I took a walk through Hazeldean/Ritchie for the first time in several years last week.
I was amazed by the number of split lots/duplexes that have been built or are under construction. It's too bad that what is going in is mainly crap and takes more away from the neighborhood than it adds through increased density. (IMHO)



http://www.yaninasokolowski.com/idx/E4021078/Edmonton/9532-72-avenue.html

and

http://www.yaninasokolowski.com/idx/E3433131/Edmonton/9843-79-av-nw.html

[Coldrsx]

^but isn't that what everyone wants in Edmonton, I mean that is essentially what 90% of the burbs is looking like and they are selling like hotcakes.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

Oh, I got your terrible argument before I put up my picture. I just thought it was stupid & didn't warrant more than a stupid response.

Keep on ragin'!

It's fine if you disagree with me and want to debate my arguments, but your minimizing of them and mischaracterizing them instead is insulting. We've both been on this forum a long time, I would have hoped that I've contributed enough that you'd think more of me by now. I can't understand what I could've done to deserve this level of disrespect from you.

[Coldrsx]

Anyone going to the BOMA patio event?

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

^but isn't that what everyone wants in Edmonton, I mean that is essentially what 90% of the burbs is looking like and they are selling like hotcakes.

Continuing my Simpsons Series of forum responses, consumers are like Agnes Skinner at the grocery store:

Agnes Skinner: And you! Start over! I want everything in one bag.
Bag Boy: Yes, ma'am.
Agnes: But I don't want the bag to be heavy.
Bag Boy: I don't think that's possible...
Agnes: What are you, the "possible police"? Just do it

(Simson Safari, S12E17)

Lots of people want stuff that's just not possible. Most everyone would love an affordable & stylish house big enough for all their family & assorted stuff, in a neighborhood that's full of the amenities they want & that's close to work/school/play.

But that's just not possible for the vast majority of people. Something has to give. And most people aren't going to give up their family with assorted stuff and the affordability is a pretty firm line for folks, leaving the stylish design, location & neighborhood amenities on the plate to be cut.

And so we have the Edmonton suburban experience.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Daveography

I'm thinking about it in terms of parents thinking about how it will affect their children when they're gone, not about children greedily waiting for their parents to die so they can sell the property.

Is that really much of a problem, though ? A single family property with a covenant on it is still going to appeal to a broad demographic of buyers, especially if it is in a desirable or historic neighborhood. I'd never put a covenant on my property for exactly the reason you suggest.. when it's time to leave Edmonton and we sell off our properties I want to realize maximum value, as the equity frrm them will fund our property in BC. But for many, especially in a character neighborhood, I don't know how much value you'd really loose.

In my dad's case the adjacent property is now essentially useless, unless it sells with the house. But I guarantee you that many people who want to live in the East Hill in Vernon will jump at a chance to have a historic-modern house with a side yard that no one can build on. So in all likelihood that property will just sell with the house when my folks decide to downsize.

I'm really curious to see what's going to happen in our area... my bet is not much, since, even as it is a very nice, well located and desirable neighborhood, it's not that nice that a developer is going to pay $500k for a good house just to knock it down and build two houses, the economics don't make sense. Where it has hit big time is in places like Mill Creek, Ritchie, and the north central neighborhoods and such, and it's knock downs that are being re-developed. It's too bad though, because (contrary to what some unscrupulous developers will tell you) they're actually driving out the affordable options in favor of a great many of the duplexes like the ones above, and some really ugly modernist examples, with a handful of decent ones scattered between.