Calgary Construction XXVI

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

As I have said a few times already, all the houses in crescent hill should be taken down, replaced with medium condo buildings, something 8 to 12 floors. I prefer around 20 floors but it’s a shok to Canadians so 8 floors will suffice.

So 20 floor towers are OK in Crescent Heights, but not in Inglewood?

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by speedog

But laneways in new suburban developments are okay?

They shouldn't be there also. Personally, it has been a very long time that I've stayed away from homes that waste land by having a laneway/back alley.

In the inner city, not only are larger lots and back alleys more pervasive, so is the absurd historical reality of using only a very small portion of the lot to build a shed of a house.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So 20 floor towers are OK in Crescent Heights, but not in Inglewood?

Inglewood is special. People like you and me are lucky they even let us transit through their area.

[Rollerstud98]

I lived in houses with no back alley and never again. One of my specific requirements when I bought my house in July was having the back alley. Can’t stand backing on to another yard as well as the 2 on the side. Also has to have as much space as possible between the houses. I have about twice as much space now than in my previous 2 places and really like it. Could never live in something with shared walls.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Can’t stand backing on to another yard as well as the 2 on the side.

Roller Stud: Do you think the fact you kept backing onto three different yards was because there was no back alley, or because of a different reason?

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Also has to have as much space as possible between the houses. I have about twice as much space now than in my previous 2 places and really like it. Could never live in something with shared walls.

I don't know about "as much space as possible" because that limits proportion of land that you can develop within the lot, but agree about a certain threshold for this. I personally don't like shared walls either, though I don't think I'd shut the door to the concept completely (if you do, you'll be hours out from the core in Paris or London or Lisbon).

[Rollerstud98]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Roller Stud: Do you think the fact you kept backing onto three different yards was because there was no back alley, or because of a different reason?

Yes because I bought houses with no back alley and therefore no separation. Now when I go stand on my back deck I enjoy myself, especially since there are more trees in my new neighbourhood. I had planted 2 big maydays at my last place which helped in the summer months. But in the winter just seeing my neighbours ugly house grinded my gears.

I don't know about "as much space as possible" because that limits proportion of land that you can develop within the lot, but agree about a certain threshold for this. I personally don't like shared walls either, though I don't think I'd shut the door to the concept completely (if you do, you'll be hours out from the core in Paris or London or Lisbon).

Although I do often work downtown I am not employed downtown so living in the core is not important for me. I have to drove for work as I work in a service oriented industry. By as much space I meant a good 20’ separation. Previously I had only maybe 10’ and it was just too close. Ideally for me I would be somewhere with acres of separation lol.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So 20 floor towers are OK in Crescent Heights, but not in Inglewood?

Yes that’s correct. Inglewoid is good already and doesn’t have urgent need for more density. Crescent hill is extreme waste of land.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Inglewood is special. People like you and me are lucky they even let us transit through their area.

That’s the first time you have said something correct. Congratulation

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

That’s the first time you have said something correct. Congratulation

I take it you live in Inglewood which would explain your "my standards only apply to other places" statement.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

Yes that’s correct. Inglewoid is good already and doesn’t have urgent need for more density. Crescent hill is extreme waste of land.

Thank you for laying out your hypocrisy so clearly for everyone to see. And you claimed you weren't a NIMBY .

I'd be interested in your justification of how occupied houses are a waste of land, but an empty lot in Inglewood, literally wasteland, is not.

[X_ting_on]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Thank you for laying out your hypocrisy so clearly for everyone to see. And you claimed you weren't a NIMBY .

I'd be interested in your justification of how occupied houses are a waste of land, but an empty lot in Inglewood, literally wasteland, is not.

What’s clear is you are a person who doesn’t pay attention very well. I said ingkewoid already has a good density mix, where as Crescent Heights does not have a good density mix, in fact no density mix really. Also Einstein, you should go back and read my post from a few months ago, I never said I was opposed to the density of the 20 story tower only that it should be two 10 storey towers. And I said Crescent Heights would be OK with 10 story towers.

[Northern]

Here’s some news for you Encyclopedia Brown. That hill is never getting zoned for condos, it’s always going to be large single-family homes otherwise known as mansions. Suck on that long and hard. I hope they bulldoze a whole bunch of those hoses and turn them into a half dozen massive mansions our good buddy Daemon can photograph all the action.

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

What’s clear is you are a person who doesn’t pay attention very well. I said ingkewoid already has a good density mix, where as Crescent Heights does not have a good density mix, in fact no density mix really. Also Einstein, you should go back and read my post from a few months ago, I never said I was opposed to the density of the 20 story tower only that it should be two 10 storey towers. And I said Crescent Heights would be OK with 10 story towers.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

Agreed. The pathway is apparently littered with garbage anyway so those few homeowners could just dump theirs out on the front sidewalk. It will just blend in with the mess from the public. Then they could cut out the bi-weekly waste bin pickup they do in the alley. Saving some tax dollars which could be put to more square footage.

I know you’re exaggerating, but it’s still true. Have you ever been to crescent hill in the evening? It’s littered in Peters wrappers and empty slurpee cups. The owners along crescent hill don’t deserve that.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

I know you’re exaggerating, but it’s still true. Have you ever been to crescent hill in the evening? It’s littered in Peters wrappers and empty slurpee cups. The owners along crescent hill don’t deserve that.

No, I've been told it's unsafe. It's nearly downtown. I don't leave my house anyways. Except maybe to go to Costco for those 4 gallon ketchups.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by X_ting_on

As I have said a few times already, all the houses in crescent hill should be taken down, replaced with medium condo buildings, something 8 to 12 floors. I prefer around 20 floors but it’s a shok to Canadians so 8 floors will suffice.

sure thing comrade.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

No, I've been told it's unsafe. It's nearly downtown. I don't leave my house anyways. Except maybe to go to Costco for those 4 gallon ketchups.

Is that an attempt to be sarcastic? Whatever the case, I feel for the owners of the houses along crescent road. It was probably a nice pleasant street with a hillside view, now it’s littered with idiots tossing their Tim Horton’s cups and cigarette butts.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by rotten42

sure thing comrade.

Anyone who says they are a communist is else saying that they are jealous of people with money.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Is that an attempt to be sarcastic? Whatever the case, I feel for the owners of the houses along crescent road. It was probably a nice pleasant street with a hillside view, now it’s littered with idiots tossing their Tim Horton’s cups and cigarette butts.

No.

Maybe it’s a good thing. They can build out the edge of the ridge like Manhattan did with garbage. Then the city can sell those new lots for mint.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

Anyone who says they are a communist is else saying that they are jealous of people with money.

kind of my point. He wants to tear down the large houses of successful people and through up crap condos so the "little guy" can life there. That isn't how it works or should be how it works.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by rotten42

kind of my point. He wants to tear down the large houses of successful people and through up crap condos so the "little guy" can life there. That isn't how it works or should be how it works.

I was agreeing with you but I didn’t word my answer very well. Those who want condos and density can build them in a shit part of town where the land isnt good for much else.