News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.3K     0 

Don't we also need basements because the water/sewer utilities have to meet the house a certain distance below ground? You can't just run pipes through a crawl space like you can in parts of the US.

I guess you could build a small vault below ground to avoid that.
 
badc0ffee said:
Don't we also need basements because the water/sewer utilities have to meet the house a certain distance below ground? You can't just run pipes through a crawl space like you can in parts of the US.

I guess you could build a small vault below ground to avoid that.
Click to expand...
That's my understanding. Getting beneath the frost-line is the key part which means 4 or 5 feet down at least. You're pretty close to a complete basement just by hooking in the utilities. That said, there's probably a bunch of different ways to achieve the minimum, without necessarily building a full, occupiable basement.

Specifically, the article is actually speaking of only removing basements in floodplains or other "flood prone" areas. This is much more targeted and a reasonable thing to explore, or at least find ways to take the expensive parts that water can easily damage out of harms way. Collectively, if all basements were removed or somehow hardened to not need remediation or at risk of mold from flooding, the collective insurance saving must be absolutely huge.

Relatedly, I have always been surprised there's not more (successful) efforts in design and construction to reduce the risk/impact of water damage. Even relatively minor leaks can cost huge amounts of damage. I know a friend with an upstairs washing machine, a minor hose leak resulted in huge damage to replace the main floor ceiling and clean everything up. And we've all heard the stories of a $100 fixture bathroom faucet leak in an apartment building that damages multiple floors beneath it at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars.

Perhaps it's just a tough problem to solve, but seems like we should be trying harder to actually water and leak proof our buildings give how devastating the impacts are?
 
CBBarnett said:
That's my understanding. Getting beneath the frost-line is the key part which means 4 or 5 feet down at least. You're pretty close to a complete basement just by hooking in the utilities. That said, there's probably a bunch of different ways to achieve the minimum, without necessarily building a full, occupiable basement.

Specifically, the article is actually speaking of only removing basements in floodplains or other "flood prone" areas. This is much more targeted and a reasonable thing to explore, or at least find ways to take the expensive parts that water can easily damage out of harms way. Collectively, if all basements were removed or somehow hardened to not need remediation or at risk of mold from flooding, the collective insurance saving must be absolutely huge.

Relatedly, I have always been surprised there's not more (successful) efforts in design and construction to reduce the risk/impact of water damage. Even relatively minor leaks can cost huge amounts of damage. I know a friend with an upstairs washing machine, a minor hose leak resulted in huge damage to replace the main floor ceiling and clean everything up. And we've all heard the stories of a $100 fixture bathroom faucet leak in an apartment building that damages multiple floors beneath it at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars.

Perhaps it's just a tough problem to solve, but seems like we should be trying harder to actually water and leak proof our buildings give how devastating the impacts are?
Click to expand...
My strata is working with our insurance company to install automatic shutoffs in every unit along with accompanying sensors after 4 water events in a year.
 
Similar pic to the one in the Scotia Place thread, but showing the CBD and Beltline. We desperately need more development in that SE quadrant of the core, but one striking positive is the core (from the east side at least) no longer looks like a bunch of office buildings with a smattering of residential towers, it's looking more like a bunch of residential towers with a smattering of office buildings, and the trend will only continue.

I know part of it's the lighting and the time of year, but man, the east side of the core really needs some greenery.
1727474537543.png


Just for comparison, here's another skyline shot from a different angle, but with some greenery (and better lighting), but the greenery makes a world of difference.
1727475234981.png
 
Last edited:
Have we seen this proposed recladding of Bridgeland Place yet?

F5CB4467-1639-467E-9EA2-CCC9543F2154.jpeg
 
Surrealplaces said:
Similar pic to the one in the Scotia Place thread, but showing the CBD and Beltline. We desperately need more development in that SE quadrant of the core, but one striking positive is the core (from the east side at least) no longer looks like a bunch of office buildings with a smattering of residential towers, it's looking more like a bunch of residential towers with a smattering of office buildings, and the trend will only continue.

I know part of it's the lighting and the time of year, but man, the east side of the core really needs some greenery.
View attachment 599778

Just for comparison, here's another skyline shot from a different angle, but with some greenery (and better lighting), but the greenery makes a world of difference.
View attachment 599779
Click to expand...
Don't disagree with your point but is it just how far the photo is taken though? Most of the greenery in the second pic is Kensington/Sunnyside, whereas the east side if you included Bridgeland and St. Patrick's Island, it'd look more green.
 
Ramsayite said:
It's hard to separate the idea of a restrictive covenant from its historical roots: always based in classism and racism. It's pretty difficult to support something that has been so thoroughly leveraged in the past as a tool to entrench dominant groups and marginalize others.

The claimed goals of these groups are always pleasant seeming: "keep the character of the neighborhood"... But once unpacked, are mainly championed by a single group and based in xenophobia and/or white supremacy

But I'm sure it's different this time
View attachment 598554
Click to expand...

What's wrong with desiring to live around people that share a similar identity, culture or religion?
 
CBBarnett said:
In addition to the above, from an individual economic standpoint, what benefit would there be to sign on to a restrictive covenant? That's the part I don't get.

You deliberately encumber your own property by adding legal risks that could limit future options - whether you live there for 5 years or 50 years seems like a strange self-defeating move. If I was living in a community where this type of movement was happening, I'd hold out forever - the more people that sign on, the more my property appears relatively unencumbered and should be worth more in the future.
Click to expand...
That's very true.

My guess would be that people are 'Taking one for the team' by purposely lowering their property value.
 
trtcttc said:
Don't disagree with your point but is it just how far the photo is taken though? Most of the greenery in the second pic is Kensington/Sunnyside, whereas the east side if you included Bridgeland and St. Patrick's Island, it'd look more green.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think part of it is the angle and distance, so it's not an apples to apples comparison, per se, but the first thing I noticed when looking at pic showing EV was the lack of greenery. You can see in the background of the pic, there is a lot more greenery on the west side of DT.
 
/\Totally agree. So disheartening to scan around downtown and beltline to find a bunch of applications for signs, change of use or the worst, parking lot renewals. A filter of sorts would seem to be a no-brainer, and not that hard to do.
 
Albertasaurus said:
My biggest gripe with the new infills happening is that none of them pay any respect towards context or aesthetic, they are all white/beige/grey/black stucco boxes that the designers don't make even a token effort to fit into our mostly WW2 era and post-war housing stock.
Click to expand...
That's where the new Heritage Guideline Areas come into play, in those zones there are some architectural guidelines that reflect the original housing forms

1727887610787.png
1727887934537.png


Although recent developments have probably priced me out of upgrading to a new home, if I was to it would definitely be in one of these guidelines areas.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top