Housing Choices - where you choose to live

[suburb]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Ugh. Another friend who's about to have a kid, suddenly doesn't have enough space in his 1000 sq ft Crescent Heights house with massive back yard.

I don't have kids yet, am I being naive to think it's doable (about 1,100 sq ft in my situation, also with a giant yard for kid(s) to play). It seems people all over the world do it no problem, and people 50 years ago did it all the time, why can't anyone now?

I don't know about people 50 years ago (half the people I talk to who grew up back then in Alberta were on a farm).

1,000 sf with a yard is certainly enough for one kid, and two also depending on your lifestyle. We were in 1,200 sf with one kid for a long time - and moved only because we were thinking of future family decisions and my job changed.

Personally, I like having lots of people over and doing things regularly with 15-30 people. That is an example of lifestyle choice / family dynamics that can impact ideal size.

Originally Posted by fusili

My brother has three kids (all boys, heaven help him), and lives in a semi-detached which is about that size, with a pretty small yard and it works perfectly well for them. The bigger the house, the more you have to clean. After babysitting my nephews from time to time, I would rather have a smaller place, because everywhere they go, they make a mess.

Do they use the basement? I'm guessing the one in crescent heights doesn't have one and the larger semi-detached does. You're right about the cleaning part - there are some people who shouldn't have a larger house for no reason other than they are slobs.

BTW - babysitting is quite different than having your own. Trust me.

Regarding toys and the like (someone else brought this up) that can be a nightmare. So many toys now a days and many that are ridiculously big. I'm really trying to limit what we get and/or purge things, but we still end up having a toy room (though it is a flex room as it has a futon). That does help with managing mess though. It, in large part, stays in that room.

Oh - and the nature of the work and civil society engagement my wife and I do means we need office space. We have an office as well as a built-in desk in another location (though the built in serves as a serving area for larger gatherings also). That all adds up.

[Rusty van Reddick]

We had SEVEN kids in about 1000 sf, with no basement, in my family. I wouldn't recommend it. But it can be done.

On the "we need a bigger house for the kid" argument- a few years ago in the real estate section of the Herald they profiled a young (early 20s) couple who were moving out of their Beltline apartment and all thrilled to buy a detached home in some far-south suburb- Evergreen, Millrise, I don't know- because they wanted a yard- FOR THEIR CAT.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Ugh. Another friend who's about to have a kid, suddenly doesn't have enough space in his 1000 sq ft Crescent Heights house with massive back yard.

I don't have kids yet, am I being naive to think it's doable (about 1,100 sq ft in my situation, also with a giant yard for kid(s) to play). It seems people all over the world do it no problem, and people 50 years ago did it all the time, why can't anyone now?

It's just silly. Your house sounds great.

I have an 1,167 ft2 house with a good sized yard, and it works just fine with 2 kids (boys, age 3 and 4)

The best thing we ever did was to finish the basement to about the same standard as upstairs. So now we have about 2,000 ft2 of genuine living space. (2 more large bedrooms, a bathroom and a large family room in the basement plus storage)

All of our friends with kids live in the suburbs, and for what they gain in square footage, they loose on yard size, heating bills, and community (may not be the same in all suburbs of course, but none of our friends seem to have the mature neighbourhood feel or sense of community and neighbours that we have)

[suburb]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

It's just silly. Your house sounds great.

I have an 1,167 ft2 house with a good sized yard, and it works just fine with 2 kids (boys, age 3 and 4)

The best thing we ever did was to finish the basement to about the same standard as upstairs. So now we have about 2,000 ft2 of genuine living space. (2 more large bedrooms, a bathroom and a large family room in the basement plus storage).

Yeah - so that is 2,000 sf and not 1,000 sf. It may be obvious to you that you have a basement, but many in the core don't realize that when they compare their $350,000 900 sf condo to a $350,000 1,200 sf house, the difference is not just a yard and 300 sf, but rather, a yard and 1,100 more sf when you include all developed spaces. Also, there are older homes that don't have true livable basements.

[Hali_user]

The key for me is living space and a yard at an affordable price.

I've lived in a condo, and lived in the belt line and that doesn't work for me as I have a large dog. I enjoyed it, but it no longer works for my lifestyle. What I want is:

a) a fenced in yard for my dog;
b) space to have friends over for a bbq or dinner;
c) space inside the house for freedom (more than one living area because I don't always want a tv in the room);
d) upgraded kitchen and bathrooms;
e) walk in closet for my suits her clothes and the like; and
f) garage for our vehicles and storage (we board, hike and travel to mountains a lot).

Believe me, if I could afford a place like this anywhere near the down town area I would be buying it. However, the difference in price is $200,000+ or accepting a place that needs a lot of work, maintenance, renos. To me the difference makes the commute worth it.

As for the suburbs, I enjoy not having horns honking and police sirens going, I enjoy not hearing homeless push shopping carts by my building. Sure you can get away from this in some inner city areas but not for a decent price. I also enjoy having nice walking trails around, and being able to walk my dog without traffic around.

If Calgary had more townhouses, duplexes and the like with fenced in yards and 2000 sq feet spaces (including basement), a garage and were upgraded or newer in the $400,000 range I'm sure they would sell.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by suburb

Yeah - so that is 2,000 sf and not 1,000 sf. It may be obvious to you that you have a basement, but many in the core don't realize that when they compare their $350,000 900 sf condo to a $350,000 1,200 sf house, the difference is not just a yard and 300 sf, but rather, a yard and 1,100 more sf when you include all developed spaces. Also, there are older homes that don't have true livable basements.

Yea. It was only 1167ft2 livable when we had our first, and it was more than enough space. When number 2 was on his way, we decided that we could do with more room. (Saying that, the 2 bedrooms are not really used, and the bathroom we could easily live without. The biggest benefit was the addition of the family room which we use all the time. About 400ft2 extra)

Either way, I think 1000ft2 for a family of 3 is totally doable, basement or no.

[fusili]

I think what Calgary needs is a lot more townhouses. They achieve the scale, feel and compatibility in a single detached neighbourhood (front entrances, lower height, back yards, rear garages), while also increasing density. The floor plates are smaller, but you can add a third storey and get 3 (or even 4) bedrooms in them. If Calgary really wants to densify, allowing townhouses in older suburbs is a huge step forward.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by fusili

I think what Calgary needs is a lot more townhouses. They achieve the scale, feel and compatibility in a single detached neighbourhood (front entrances, lower height, back yards, rear garages), while also increasing density. The floor plates are smaller, but you can add a third storey and get 3 (or even 4) bedrooms in them. If Calgary really wants to densify, allowing townhouses in older suburbs is a huge step forward.

Plus they allow some measure of backyard if desired. I think the lack of ground-level outdoor space in condos can be a turn-off for some (especially those with kids?). Having a townhouse is a good middle ground.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

Plus they allow some measure of backyard if desired. I think the lack of ground-level outdoor space in condos can be a turn-off for some (especially those with kids?). Having a townhouse is a good middle ground.

If you can get 4 or 5 (or even 3) 50 foot lots together and put townhouses on them, it really allows for the best of both worlds. You can get just slightly more units than if you were to subdivide and do semis on 25ft lots.

[bigcanuck]

The key for us isn't living space as much as it is storage space. 2 kids under 5 in our house. With the age difference, we kept a lot of the clothes/toys/gear from the older in preparation for having a 2nd child. This "stuff" by itself takes up tons of space. Of course, we could have gotten rid of it and started over again with the second child but that's not cheap. And the cycle continues. It's not just baby clothes but all clothes, toys, etc. that kids grow out of as they get older.

As the kids get older, more "stuff" comes with age. Bicycles, roller skates, ice skates, sports equipment, etc. This all requires storage space (not living space). We do have plenty of indoor living space plus a pie-shaped lot provides plenty of yard space (complete with playing equipment). The argument about not requiring a yard for playing equipment if there is a park nearby is pointless if you have a 4 year old with excess energy and a newborn that needs to be inside eating/sleeping throughout the day. Being able to let the 4 year old loose in the fenced in yard with playing equipment is invaluable.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

I think what Calgary needs is a lot more townhouses. They achieve the scale, feel and compatibility in a single detached neighbourhood (front entrances, lower height, back yards, rear garages), while also increasing density. The floor plates are smaller, but you can add a third storey and get 3 (or even 4) bedrooms in them. If Calgary really wants to densify, allowing townhouses in older suburbs is a huge step forward.

I would definitely like to see zero lot line development allowed in the city. It would have to involve a more stringent building code, say a two hour firewall requirement and some strict regulations to ensure that neighbouring foundations aren't damaged during construction. Front setbacks should also be relaxed somewhat, say to 10' at a minimum.

It would make it easier to slowly develop row housing and eliminate any need for condiminiumization of the properties. Without the need of side yards individual 50' lots could easily accommodate three houses each about the size of the typical infill (which is what, about 17' with 4' setbacks on each side?).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I would definitely like to see zero lot line development allowed in the city. It would have to involve a more stringent building code, say a two hour firewall requirement and some strict regulations to ensure that neighbouring foundations aren't damaged during construction. Front setbacks should also be relaxed somewhat, say to 10' at a minimum.

It would make it easier to slowly develop row housing and eliminate any need for condiminiumization of the properties. Without the need of side yards individual 50' lots could easily accommodate three houses each about the size of the typical infill (which is what, about 17' with 4' setbacks on each side?).

The city can decide to do zero lot line if they want (and they do in some multi-residential districts, especially in Beltline). Most setbacks for side yards in residential districts are 4' (1.2m actually). Mostly this is because anything less can't have glazing (windows) according to the building code (at least least the glazing has to be fire rated, the other reason is it allows people to move from the front to the back of the property without going through the building.

The building code is going to be the building code, no matter what the land use bylaw is. I believe attached houses need a 2hr fire rating (IIRC- I don't want to pull up the building code to find out).

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

The city can decide to do zero lot line if they want (and they do in some multi-residential districts, especially in Beltline). Most setbacks for side yards in residential districts are 4' (1.2m actually). Mostly this is because anything less can't have glazing (windows) according to the building code (at least least the glazing has to be fire rated, the other reason is it allows people to move from the front to the back of the property without going through the building.

The building code is going to be the building code, no matter what the land use bylaw is. I believe attached houses need a 2hr fire rating (IIRC- I don't want to pull up the building code to find out).

I'm pretty sure that townhouses don't require party walls to have a 2hr fire rating. I have no idea what the requirement would be for distinct buildings that abut each other but if its 2hrs then yeah, no alteration to the building code should be required to assuage anyone's fears.

Is there really that much of a need to travel from the front to the back of the property with out entering the building? Personally speaking, I really can't see that being a big deal.

[5seconds]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I'm pretty sure that townhouses don't require party walls to have a 2hr fire rating. I have no idea what the requirement would be for distinct buildings that abut each other but if its 2hrs then yeah, no alteration to the building code should be required to assuage anyone's fears.

Is there really that much of a need to travel from the front to the back of the property with out entering the building? Personally speaking, I really can't see that being a big deal.

In Calgary, I can't see the problem with no front-to-back access so long as there is an alley. I once lived in a place that didn't have any other access to the backyard than through the house, and it wasn't great.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

I'm pretty sure that townhouses don't require party walls to have a 2hr fire rating. I have no idea what the requirement would be for distinct buildings that abut each other but if its 2hrs then yeah, no alteration to the building code should be required to assuage anyone's fears.

Is there really that much of a need to travel from the front to the back of the property with out entering the building? Personally speaking, I really can't see that being a big deal.

The issue arises when you are doing yard work or repairs, having to go through your house with a law mower is generally not appreciated, that said if there was a specific pass through (ie from the garage out to a patio and to the front) it would work

[1ajs]

if i could i would take over my grandmas pad
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1ajs/68...n/photostream/

[suburb]

Worth a re-post on this thread ...

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Wonder if the never ending debate between urban and suburban that happens here, had anything to do with Richard White's story in today's Herald.

Well worth the read.

"Suburb Bashing Ignores the Facts"

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Bassic Lab

Is there really that much of a need to travel from the front to the back of the property with out entering the building? Personally speaking, I really can't see that being a big deal.

I have an uncle in Toronto in a situation like that. Cutting the grass isn't fun when you have to physically pick up the mower and carry it through the house. Also, no easy way to do a backyard BBQ where you don't want to make a mess in the house.

Originally Posted by 1ajs

if i could i would take over my grandmas pad
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1ajs/68...n/photostream/

The Holy Cross?

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Originally Posted by suburb

I have an uncle in Toronto in a situation like that. Cutting the grass isn't fun when you have to physically pick up the mower and carry it through the house.

he knows he doesn't have to have grass in his yard right?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by suburb

I have an uncle in Toronto in a situation like that. Cutting the grass isn't fun when you have to physically pick up the mower and carry it through the house. Also, no easy way to do a backyard BBQ where you don't want to make a mess in the house.

Never thought about the lawnmower issue. Since most (all?) townhouses in Calgary would have a front lawn, I guess that's what people have to do? Of course not having a lawn in front is one answer, but one that hasn't been done in Calgary as far as I know. I suppose another solution is to hire someone to mow all the front lawns.

I wasn't sure what you meant about not being able to have a BBQ without making a mess.