[MurrMann]

Sometimes people talk of maximum use of a lot in the context of densification. Building the maximum lot coverage and height or gross footage for a SFD Is not building density. Combining 10 lots with 35% coverage into a 24 storey condo with 35% footprint to house 300+ units is the other extreme. Somewhere there has to be a balance. That’s what zoning restrictions should accomplish. Along with that every entity involved in redevelopment must consider the quality of life of the future and current neighbourhood residents. That’s nothing new but it’s current in the present crazy expansion.

 

[Darwinkgo]

With the right zoning, houses that are too big to remain viable will eventually be broken into apartments just like in old Toronto.
As you note, this is a yellow belt problem, not a build form problem for most of us.
And yeah - by not compatible with the climate, do you mean flat roofs? Who cares.

 

[dusk]

Why? They're of poor design for our climate, generally ugly, poorly built in a lot of cases, and do nothing most of the time for our need of densification in these neighbourhoods.

I'm with you on not caring about the "character" of Yellowbelt waste-of-space, but these particular replacements are a sham.

I don't actually love them. What I'm happy about is that people are coming to the realization that they're being built solely to take advantage of artificially inflated land prices. I'm hoping this lights a fire under people to reimagine zoning across the entire city. Until that happens, I welcome mcmansions and other disruptions to neighbourhood "character".

 

[SunriseChampion]

I don't actually love them. What I'm happy about is that people are coming to the realization that they're being built solely to take advantage of artificially inflated land prices. I'm hoping this lights a fire under people to reimagine zoning across the entire city. Until that happens, I welcome mcmansions and other disruptions to neighbourhood "character".

As a spit in the eye of the NIMBYots! Yeah, ok, I'm with you on that.

 

[dusk]

As a spit in the eye of the NIMBYots! Yeah, ok, I'm with you on that.

That's the spirit haha.

 

[Memph]

This is the best thing I've read anywhere on the internet this month. Thanks for coming out!

Also, don't worry, I write our names all over these things. As well as stamp our names in metal product and apply stickers with our name on it. Secret hidden stuff for future....demolition. ?

The thing is that half of what we work on has a lifespan of maybe 50 years, in terms of material lifetime and the other half is closer to 200+ years so it's a toss up with the names being hidden.

What do you think will be the most likely points of failure for the ones that don't last very long (ie 50 years)?

 

[SunriseChampion]

What do you think will be the most likely points of failure for the ones that don't last very long (ie 50 years)?

I was speaking specifically of materials that I use in my work. Some having lifespans of as little as 20 or so years and some lasting hundreds of years.

None of which should pose serious structural problems at end of serviceable life.

That being said, if you're asking me more in general terms, I don't mind telling you that a lot of masonry work is done very poorly and lasts barely 20 years when it should last 100+. And that's without serious seismic activity or flooding being a norm around here!

Also egregious is a lot of design, which is entirely on the architects, who have no practical experience and sometimes refuse to learn from that of others.
A lot of design is faulty from the start which results in structural failure sometimes even shortly after completion, if not during construction!

It is often over-ridden though by builders/or tradespeople and mitigated or partially mitigated, but is a major problem in my experience.
Yet the architects get all or most of the credit!

Or did you have very specific points of failure in mind with your question?

 

[Memph]

I was speaking specifically of materials that I use in my work. Some having lifespans of as little as 20 or so years and some lasting hundreds of years.

None of which should pose serious structural problems at end of serviceable life.

That being said, if you're asking me more in general terms, I don't mind telling you that a lot of masonry work is done very poorly and lasts barely 20 years when it should last 100+. And that's without serious seismic activity or flooding being a norm around here!

Also egregious is a lot of design, which is entirely on the architects, who have no practical experience and sometimes refuse to learn from that of others.
A lot of design is faulty from the start which results in structural failure sometimes even shortly after completion, if not during construction!

It is often over-ridden though by builders/or tradespeople and mitigated or partially mitigated, but is a major problem in my experience.
Yet the architects get all or most of the credit!

Or did you have very specific points of failure in mind with your question?

Yeah, I was just curious about specific things you might have to watch out for that could go bad for homes not built properly.

For example my parents house, which is 60 years old, is probably going to have to have the eave soffits replaced in a decade since they're starting to rot. The basement is also getting efflorescence and bubbling paint in the unfinished storage room, so I guess there's some drainage issues on the exterior wall. The house is next to a creek and a lot of neighbours houses have been having issues with ground water and sump pumps (including new custom homes). I'm guessing roof drainage and foundation/groundwater drainage issues are two of the most common issues to watch out for?

 

[SunriseChampion]

Yeah, I was just curious about specific things you might have to watch out for that could go bad for homes not built properly.

It depends on the home. The design of it, the age (era it was built), materials used, etc.

For example my parents house, which is 60 years old, is probably going to have to have the eave soffits replaced in a decade since they're starting to rot.

That could be a sign of water ingress above the roof line which, in the absence of interior water damage, could be rotting the walls from within.

The basement is also getting efflorescence and bubbling paint in the unfinished storage room, so I guess there's some drainage issues on the exterior wall.

Could possibly be related to the above-mentioned water ingress at roof line. Or, yeah, it could be foundation waterproofing issues.

The house is next to a creek and a lot of neighbours houses have been having issues with ground water and sump pumps (including new custom homes). I'm guessing roof drainage and foundation/groundwater drainage issues are two of the most common issues to watch out for?

Foundation waterproofing, even in new homes, is often done improperly and is a major issue, from what I can tell.
Roof drainage as well.
It's weird, for some reason, people have an aversion to rain water leaders (downpipes, as they're known) and insist on such stupidity as not having any on the facade or having them run at all manner of silly angle and distance.

Rain water leaders need to be plenty, as short as possible, in as straight a line as possible, as big as needed, and drain well away from the house!

VERY important stuff. Very basic. Yet very much overlooked for "sexier" things like light fixtures and fancy door knobs (a good word to describe many a person, not gonna lie).