News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Yes, this can be a problem with infill. Some people use up the whole space build as close to the property line as they can, so their neighbours get a view of a blank wall.

I can't imagine the neighbour here with their plants and greenery is very pleased with this big concrete pad next door.

It is why sometimes people oppose denser development, but of course the solution is proper guidelines and rules so what is built is compatible with the neighbourhood.
 
i also quite like the houses themselves which is why the front yard treatment is that much more disappointing…
Precisely. It didn't need much to complement the houses. Plant a row of tail juniper between the houses, with a some elderberry shrubs in the V section dividing the driveway ramps and it's a whole different story there
 
when some people wonder why some other people aren’t enthusiastic fans of infill housing:View attachment 498813

there aren’t enough planters at home depot to hold enough lipstick to pretty up this pair of front yards…
The thing is, even before lot splitting was a thing, this could be an issue. Homes can always be demolished and replaced and there's plenty of terrible homes that don't add density
 
How isn't this above the maximum impermeable surface coverage?
a minimum of 30% of the lot needs to be permeable and my guess is the back yard meets that. as for the front, you’re allowed 3.7 metres of concrete per parking stall so that’s probably also complying and the one deciduous tree, one conifer and four shrubs will get tucked into the edges abutting the neighbouring parcels.
 
^
agreed assuming you’re referring to the darker “infill” pour of concrete that looks like it was done to make it easy to remove “if they got caught” and not just the strip between the homes themselves…
 
Plenty of interesting infill projects coming to council's next public hearing on February 20th:
  • Redeveloping the remaining military barracks in Griesbach
  • Four-storey buildings on two vacant lots in Alberta Avenue
  • A four-storey building in McKernan
  • A new tower at 103 Ave and 123 St in Oliver (or the neighbourhood soon to be formerly known as Oliver)
  • A 20-storey tower along 104 Ave
  • An eight-storey tower at 111 Ave and 110 St
  • Building height and setback modifications in Holyrood
 
Plenty of interesting infill projects coming to council's next public hearing on February 20th:
  • Redeveloping the remaining military barracks in Griesbach
  • Four-storey buildings on two vacant lots in Alberta Avenue
  • A four-storey building in McKernan
  • A new tower at 103 Ave and 123 St in Oliver (or the neighbourhood soon to be formerly known as Oliver)
  • A 20-storey tower along 104 Ave
  • An eight-storey tower at 111 Ave and 110 St
  • Building height and setback modifications in Holyrood

Yes to all, please.
 
I noticed that a concern of the 123 st is a decrease in property values. Without holding back, are the opposers of these projects just stupid?

How on earth could they believe that projects like this or Mercury Block(s) make the area less desirable?
 
I noticed that a concern of the 123 st is a decrease in property values. Without holding back, are the opposers of these projects just stupid?

How on earth could they believe that projects like this or Mercury Block(s) make the area less desirable?
I think the thought process of these types of people is:

Multi-unit / denser housing = poor people = lower property values

It's an ingrained and harmful idea in North American culture that if you have the money to have a big detached house, you do and if you don't you're poor. If they thought about it for more than 30 seconds, they would realize that this is far from the truth and that actually more units per kilometer increases land value, but the classism (and the association of lower classes with denser housing) is very strong.

Then there are the "preserve neighborhood character" people who's ideas stem from the same place as the "lowering my land values" people: classism. However they don't even bother to make it seem like they're not classist (which often correlates with racist), straight up saying basically that "new residents" would negatively impact the "character" of their neighborhood.
 

Back
Top