Calgary Construction XXVI - Page 149

Northern · #**2961** Posted **Dec 18, 2018, 8:10 PM**

What exactly are you talking about? Those two houses to the right will be gone soon enough, and will no doubt be turned into one larger home. The houses on the left are probably headed ion the same direction. That's the context you're looking at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fatcat loser

So let me get this straight. The neighborhood needs to move to being more contextual so were going to take out two houses that are in the same size range as its neighbors and building something twice as big to make it contextual?

Here is a link to the definition of 'contextual' in case you're thinking it means something else.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/contextual

And for just for context (no pun intended), here are the neighbors.

Northern · #**2962** Posted **Dec 18, 2018, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deepstar

Really 10,000 square foot houses are quite normal? How many houses in the area do you think are actually that large?

And no, once combined it won’t fit in better with the houses on either side. The hoses on both sides are of similar context to those houses they are going to tear down.

The brick house that's getting torn down is probably around 10,000 sq. 10,000sq ft is nothing, there's a house in Pump Hill that's 35,000 sq ft.

Suburgatory · #**2963** Posted **Dec 18, 2018, 8:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern

The brick house that's getting torn down is probably around 10,000 sq. 10,000sq ft is nothing, there's a house in Pump Hill that's 35,000 sq ft.

That brick house is 140 feet deep?!?!

suburbia · #**2964** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern

The brick house that's getting torn down is probably around 10,000 sq.

And you're Long Dong Silver.

My estimate would have that house at 4,000sf because it is quite heavy set and older houses like this rarely have double height rooms on the ground floor. If this was a newer home with the same footprint, I'd say 3,200sf because the living room and possible more would have been double height. I do not actually have stats on this house. It certainly is not 10,000 sf as suggested above. Not even half that.

suburbia · #**2965** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 12:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fatcat loser

What a waste of a great lot. This house should be replaced with one more appropriate for such a large lot.

jc_yyc_ca · #**2966** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 12:47 AM**

That lot with the two smaller houses is kind of a waste. They need to either build another house on the left side of the lot or at least build a house that better fills the yard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fatcat loser

So let me get this straight. The neighborhood needs to move to being more contextual so were going to take out two houses that are in the same size range as its neighbors and building something twice as big to make it contextual?

Here is a link to the definition of 'contextual' in case you're thinking it means something else.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/contextual

And for just for context (no pun intended), here are the neighbors.

accord1999 · #**2967** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 1:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

Apparently you two need to some education in the world of Calgary real estate. There are few home in Calgary that are 10,000 sq ft are larger, and the largest home in Crescent Heights is probably around 6,000 sq ft tops.

Eyeballing from Google Maps, I think 102 Crescent Road NW is the biggest house currently on the road at nearly 7000 square feet:

https://themash.ca/realestategossip/2012/10/mishmash-monday_29.html
https://homesoftherich.net/2014/10/11-5-million-contemporary-home-in-alberta-canada/

Probably the best lot in terms of view since you don't have to worry about poor people getting in front of it.

suburbia · #**2968** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 1:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

largest home in Crescent Heights is probably around 6,000 sq ft tops.

102 Crescent Rd. NW, formerly owned by JR Shaw, is about 10,000 sf. The listing, when it sold in 2013, said as much. [correction - just revisited and it looks like it is almost 10K sf of developed space, and not above grade]

Glad you agreed that the home Northern estimated at 10K sf is no way near that.

Agree that there are not a tonne of homes quite that size up there. You'll note I stated "up to". How large is that new "mansion" that is coming up?

There are a couple on 7a St NW just off Crescent Rd. that could be around there also. One was converted into a hospice.

Fishthebow · #**2969** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 1:37 AM**

Looks like another new mansion project to watch go up

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemon

Today I discovered something new. Another house has the purple sign in front. Is this possible another house to get demolished and another larger one is built?

Fishthebow · #**2970** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 1:40 AM**

You stated up to 10K is quite normal for the area. One house is almost up to 10K, and most others are 2-4K.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

102 Crescent Rd. NW, formerly owned by JR Shaw, is about 10,000 sf. The listing, when it sold in 2013, said as much. [correction - just revisited and it looks like it is almost 10K sf of developed space, and not above grade]

Glad you agreed that the home Northern estimated at 10K sf is no way near that.

Agree that there are not a tonne of homes quite that size up there. You'll note I stated "up to". How large is that new "mansion" that is coming up?

There are a couple on 7a St NW just off Crescent Rd. that could be around there also. One was converted into a hospice.

jc_yyc_ca · #**2971** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 1:50 AM**

Okay so there's one house that almost 10K. I forgot about that place, but my point having 'houses up to 10K is quite normal for the area' is not the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by suburbia

102 Crescent Rd. NW, formerly owned by JR Shaw, is about 10,000 sf. The listing, when it sold in 2013, said as much. [correction - just revisited and it looks like it is almost 10K sf of developed space, and not above grade]

Glad you agreed that the home Northern estimated at 10K sf is no way near that.

Agree that there are not a tonne of homes quite that size up there. You'll note I stated "up to". How large is that new "mansion" that is coming up?

There are a couple on 7a St NW just off Crescent Rd. that could be around there also. One was converted into a hospice.

Suburgatory · #**2972** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 2:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

They don't count below grade when calculating square footage.

What?

Rollerstud98 · #**2973** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 2:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

What?

Unless there is a walkout basement the basement is not included in the official square footage of a house, realtors will often include it to say 2500 square feet of living space or something. My house that I just sold was listed at over 2100 square feet I think and close to 3000 square feet developed. New house is 1150 square feet with probably 2000 developed. 1 less floor as I purchased a bi-level this time and had a 2 storey previously.

Daemon · #**2974** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 2:35 AM**

Small house on right hand side is for sale. Another mansion maybe is to come

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fatcat loser

So let me get this straight. The neighborhood needs to move to being more contextual so were going to take out two houses that are in the same size range as its neighbors and building something twice as big to make it contextual?

Here is a link to the definition of 'contextual' in case you're thinking it means something else.
https://www.yourdictionary.com/contextual

And for just for context (no pun intended), here are the neighbors.

Daemon · #**2975** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 2:37 AM**

Yes should be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishthebow

Looks like another new mansion project to watch go up

Suburgatory · #**2976** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 3:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollerstud98

Unless there is a walkout basement the basement is not included in the official square footage of a house, realtors will often include it to say 2500 square feet of living space or something. My house that I just sold was listed at over 2100 square feet I think and close to 3000 square feet developed. New house is 1150 square feet with probably 2000 developed. 1 less floor as I purchased a bi-level this time and had a 2 storey previously.

Well ya obviously. I’m not sure why he’s posting that in response to my post.

suburbia · #**2977** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 4:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

That brick house is 140 feet deep?!?!

They don't count below grade when calculating square footage.

LOL! Suburgatory must have the inside scoop on this house. 14 floors below grade, with a direct connection to the LRT station, had it panned out.

GSS · #**2978** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 5:58 AM**

Only 5 cranes. I challenge anyone to find 6 cranes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daemon

no photos of the mansions today but today we cranes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishthebow

6 cranes in the shot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

6

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

Get your eyes checked. There's 6.

Suburgatory · #**2979** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 8:49 AM**

suburbia · #**2980** Posted **Dec 19, 2018, 3:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

Uggh.

Building depth refers to the dimension measured from the front to the back of a building's floorpate (as opposed to frontage width).

I think JC was being a pinch sarcastic when he responded to your comment with the following. But it was pretty funny, given you were also advocating for the 160 foot deep LRT station nearby. LOL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

They don't count below grade when calculating square footage.