Edmonton Is Making Its Alleyways a Great Place to Live

[Crawford]

If forced to live in a Markham sprawlburb, I'd absolutely take those snout houses over the alley houses. Way more practical for living.

I'm picturing January in Ontario, trying to unload squirming kids and groceries out of my car, and my options are an attached garage, or a detached garage in a back alley. Bet you the neighborhoods with attached front garages fetch a premium.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If forced to live in a Markham sprawlburb, I'd absolutely take those snout houses over the alley houses. Way more practical for living.

And I'd take the alley neighborhood a million times before subjecting my family to the unmitigated shame and ugliness of a snout house.

Aesthetics > attached garages

Everytime.

Everywhere.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And I'd take the alley neighborhood a million times before subjecting my family to be the unmitigated shame and ugliness of a snout house.

Aesthetics > attached garages

Everytime.

Everywhere.

I think your tastes would be very unusual. I've never heard anyone ask for an exurban sprawl house with a rear detached garage. It's like marrying the awfulness of sprawl with the petty annoyances of urban life.

And I disagree re. aesthetics. These neighborhoods are all horrible, but the alley neighborhoods are horrible and impractical. Concrete yards are much uglier than grass, and all these homes have the same crappy two car garages.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think your tastes would be very unusual.

Perhaps, but I really don't care.

I know what I like, and more importantly, I know what I hate.

And I fundamentally hate snout houses.

I can't think of any family-size housing type that I more strongly detest.

"Give me alleys or give me death!"

[Doady]

I am confused, I don't see much difference between parking and garage in the back vs. the front in terms of lifestyle. They all have backyards, they all still have front yards and gardens. Lot sizes still the same. Just no driveway to take up space in the front yard. Just an aesthetic difference. It's hard to see what is "impractical"? Am I missing something?

[memph]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm looking at these Markham back "yards", and there isn't a blade of grass. They're concrete patios. You don't even need a mower or any garden/lawn tools.

Are these homeowners mostly immigrants or children of immigrants?

Well, that's kind of why the argument that people won't want to leave the suburbs because they don't want to give up their "space" doesn't hold water as much in Toronto.

That being said, if that's how small your yard is, I don't think it's bad for it to be paved. There's a big park across the street with plenty of grass, and I think having a small yard that's basically a patio for the BBQ and outdoor table with few little flower beds is nicer than a tiny square of grass you can't really do anything with just to preserve the image of a "traditional backyard".

The main thing these houses have going for them is that they're decently big (2000sf+, 4+ bedrooms) for a price that's much lower than what it would be in Central Toronto, which makes them appealing to families (including multi-generational families). Some people also like owning their property fully, and not having to deal with condo associations/fees.

As for who lives there, it's about 33% white and 20% third generation Canadians, which is still much higher than the rest of Markham.

But yeah, the high suburban densities are why I think it makes sense to think about how to get these neighbourhoods to have a more urban design and function.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

when it comes to planning, a nation could not possibly make a bigger mistake.

we've been ROYALLY fucking up planning down here for like 7 decades now.

do. not. emulate.

That's the thing. Canada is already emulating the US. Markham is a US-style suburb. It is inspired by development in the US. Difference is, more Canadian suburbs are being built in the the US style than US suburbs. Not enough US suburbs being planned according to US ideas. Not enough US suburbs being planned at all. Just haphazard, lack of cohesion, lack of governance, lack of leadership. Just not enough top-down approach. I keep saying US and Canada are the same, but it's just a different system of government. US cities and suburbs can do what Canadian cities and suburbs are doing, and they already have. After all, Canadian suburbs like Markham copying US ideas, and arguably they are not even doing it as well as those in the US. Is Cornell in Markham, Uptown Core in Oakville, or Churchill Meadows in Mississauga on the same level as Seaside, Florida? Think about that. The USA can do everything that Canada can, and better. The problem is not that the USA can't but that too often the USA doesn't even try.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Doady

I am confused, I don't see much difference between parking and garage in the back vs. the front in terms of lifestyle. They all have backyards, they all still have front yards and gardens. Lot sizes still the same. Just no driveway to take up space in the front yard. Just an aesthetic difference. It's hard to see what is "impractical"? Am I missing something?

I think the laneway neighbourhoods might be a bit less dense even... at least the ones that lack laneway housing.

From a practicality point of view... I don't think it changes much. So many of the suburbanites are going to be storing stuff that's not a car in their garage, and virtually all of these houses have more cars than garage parking, so a lot of the time the garage will be housing the least used car in the household (so that it doesn't block the more frequently used cars from getting out of the driveway), meaning that people are going to be walking outside for 5 seconds to get inside during the winter regardless of the layout.

Which... I don't think is such a big deal anyways? I mean people are still going to be walking their dogs, etc for longer in the same weather and that's not such a big deal either. Plus the distance to walk from your driveway/laneway garage is much shorter than the distance you walk from the grocery store parking spot to the grocery store front door.

[memph]

Originally Posted by Doady

That's the thing. Canada is already emulating the US. Markham is a US-style suburb. It is inspired by development in the US. Difference is, more Canadian suburbs are being built in the the US style than US suburbs. Not enough US suburbs being planned according to US ideas. Not enough US suburbs being planned at all. Just haphazard, lack of cohesion, lack of governance, lack of leadership. Just not enough top-down approach. I keep saying US and Canada are the same, but it's just a different system of government. US cities and suburbs can do what Canadian cities and suburbs are doing, and they already have. After all, Canadian suburbs like Markham copying US ideas, and arguably they are not even doing it as well as those in the US. Is Cornell in Markham, Uptown Core in Oakville, or Churchill Meadows in Mississauga on the same level as Seaside, Florida? Think about that. The USA can do everything that Canada can, and better. The problem is not that the USA can't but that too often the USA doesn't even try.

I do think Seaside and the rest of those communities on the Panhandle are a bit of a special case since they're catering to affluent people that mostly come there on vacation and will be much more eager to spend money at local cafes, ice cream shops, boutiques, restaurants, etc than the average suburbanite. They also aren't going to be commuting 10km+ each day like the average suburbanite. But there's still some more typical suburban examples in the US that I think are pretty well done.

[itom 987]

When you live as far north as Canada, those snout houses while ugly can be a blessing when the temps go below 32f. Going to your car without ever stepping outside, and not having to scrape or remove snow from the windshield is a blessing.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by itom 987

When you live as far north as Canada, those snout houses while ugly can be a blessing when the temps go below 32f. Going to your car without ever stepping outside, and not having to scrape or remove snow from the windshield is a blessing.

Yup, it's a huge value premium. People want connected garages, both in urban and suburban environments. Makes a big difference anywhere there's cold, heat and heavy rail (so basically anywhere in North America but coastal CA, and even there you'll have a price premium.). There's also additional privacy, of course. You can throw out your trash in your PJs and flip-flops.

I'm trying to think of an instance where someone willingly built a detached garage, and can't think of any. Certainly there are still many new construction homes built with detached garages, but that's due to zoning restrictions, not due to builder/consumer choice. So, for example, many infill homes in older streetcar suburbs have detached or rear alley garages, but that's because they're forced to do so. If they could build the same home with attached garage they'd have a significant price premium (maybe 20% or so in exurban sprawl).

[kool maudit]

A few zoning changes and Markham becomes a plywood West Philly. Which isn't too bad, as such things go.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

A few zoning changes and Markham becomes a plywood West Philly. Which isn't too bad, as such things go.

Kind of, but absent context. It's like West Philly airlifted to a farm field, and then everyone has three cars, and lives the standard NA autocentric lifestyle.

It's really representative of the value of GTA land and the desire for homeownership, especially among immigrants. You can zone like this, and developers can make money on such a product.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by itom 987

When you live as far north as Canada, those snout houses while ugly can be a blessing when the temps go below 32f. Going to your car without ever stepping outside, and not having to scrape or remove snow from the windshield is a blessing.

I'm aware of the practical advantages of attached garages, but for me, the negative aesthetic impacts of street-facing garages and curb cuts/driveways every 15-20' will simply never be off-set by them.

I just do not like that look at all, and if given the choice between a Markham neighborhood with snout houses or one with normal-looking homes fronting the street with detached garages off an alley in back, I'm choosing the latter every single time.

A neighborhood full of houses with street-facing garages and driveways is simply a non-starter for me. It would be my last choice of north american residential built environment to live within. YMMV.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

before subjecting my family to the unmitigated shame and ugliness of a snout house.

Originally Posted by Crawford

... an exurban sprawl house with a rear detached garage. It's like marrying the awfulness of sprawl with the petty annoyances of urban life.

True

Originally Posted by itom 987

When you live as far north as Canada, those snout houses while ugly can be a blessing when the temps go below 32f. Going to your car without ever stepping outside, and not having to scrape or remove snow from the windshield is a blessing.

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's also additional privacy, of course. You can throw out your trash in your PJs and flip-flops.

Plus, you can pull in your driveway, into the garage, and have the door close behind you without having to possibly interact with your neighbors aside from the obligatory wave from inside your car.

Mainly kidding on that one, but sometimes you just don't feel like small talk or are in a rush.

Never having lived in a home with an attached garage (with access into my basement) until couple years ago, I never realized the value it brings to one's life. Plus, my garage doesn't front the street... the driveway curves down to a level not visible from the street and enters the garage on the side of the house at the lower/ground level. No snout whatsoever.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by memph

From a practicality point of view... I don't think it changes much. So many of the suburbanites are going to be storing stuff that's not a car in their garage, and virtually all of these houses have more cars than garage parking, so a lot of the time the garage will be housing the least used car in the household (so that it doesn't block the more frequently used cars from getting out of the driveway), meaning that people are going to be walking outside for 5 seconds to get inside during the winter regardless of the layout.

Which... I don't think is such a big deal anyways? I mean people are still going to be walking their dogs, etc for longer in the same weather and that's not such a big deal either. Plus the distance to walk from your driveway/laneway garage is much shorter than the distance you walk from the grocery store parking spot to the grocery store front door.

One of the reasons garages are used to store so much crap in modern suburban houses is the relative rarity of both basements (many homes have slab foundations), along with usable attic space (modern pre-manufactured roof trusses typically do not allow for the conversion of the attic to even a semi-habitable space). So unless you want to live like a hoarder, your garage will be stuffed with shit.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm trying to think of an instance where someone willingly built a detached garage, and can't think of any. Certainly there are still many new construction homes built with detached garages, but that's due to zoning restrictions, not due to builder/consumer choice. So, for example, many infill homes in older streetcar suburbs have detached or rear alley garages, but that's because they're forced to do so. If they could build the same home with attached garage they'd have a significant price premium (maybe 20% or so in exurban sprawl).

I can think of many recent examples in Pittsburgh in rowhouse neighborhoods - particularly deep (100-foot plus) lots with alley access. Due to the lot configuration, a detached garage gives you a usable backyard, while an attached one means your entire backyard is taken up by a driveway. There's no zoning requirement for detached garages though. There's also been no zoning stopping integral garages facing frontwards - that's going to change now, but in practice this was never done when alley access was available.

My current home (not a rowhouse, more a circa 1900 big foursquare) doesn't have a garage of any sort or even a way to park in the rear (there is a back alley, but it's unpaved and my backyard is around five feet below the alley grade, which would make installing parking a pain). It's...not a big deal. There's enough space in front of our home to park two cars, and 90% of the time we can park both of ours in front. Much better than our old neighborhood (which was a popular nightlife area) where if we went out in the evening we were parking blocks away when we got back home.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

One of the reasons garages are used to store so much crap in modern suburban houses is the relative rarity of both basements (many homes have slab foundations, along with usable attic space (modern pre-manufactured roof trusses typically do not allow for the conversion of the attic to even a semi-habitable space. So unless you want to live like a hoarder, your garage will be stuffed with shit.

I have a good-sized basement "utility room" and a large attic (I can't stand without crouching uncomfortably, but I'm pretty tall) that has ample storage space... and my garage is still stuffed with shit... guess I need a shed

[Crawford]

A lot of new construction garages are just additional rooms in the house. They're insulated and heated, the floors are carpeted, and the car spaces are epoxied, and the mudroom is built into the garage space.

So the idea of putting the garage in a separate building, to many consumers, makes as much sense as putting the kitchen or bathrooms in a separate building.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I have a good-sized basement "utility room" and a large attic (I can't stand without crouching uncomfortably, but I'm pretty tall) that has ample storage space... and my garage is still stuffed with shit... guess I need a shed

most people seem to accumulate shit up to their carrying capacity, whatever that may be.

we have no garage at all (just a parking pad off the alley), no attic (we're in a 3-flat), and our basement is all built-out finished space except for a smaller shared utility/storage room at the very back where all of my bike stuff is (i'm kind of a bicycle nut), and we manage to get by just fine.

how does our family of 4 do it? we simply have way less rarely/never-used crap than your typical suburban american family.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

A lot of new construction garages are just additional rooms in the house. They're insulated and heated, the floors are carpeted, and the car spaces are epoxied, and the mudroom is built into the garage space.

So the idea of putting the garage in a separate building, to many consumers, makes as much sense as putting the kitchen or bedroom or bathroom in a separate building.

Different strokes for different folks, but I don't see myself ever owning a home built after 1930. This is more due to design/materials than something like attached garages, but still: they hold zero appeal to me.