Calgary Openings, Closings, and Developments

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

We can't have those because then you'd see into your neighbours yard. And they'd cost more.

I'm not sure if you're being serious right now.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I'm not sure if you're being serious right now.

That was my assumption, I considered it when I built my garage but it was going to lead to delays for the DP.

• If you are proposing a rooftop deck or balcony, a development permit will always be required.
• There is no guarantee your development permit would be approved if your building includes a rooftop deck or balcony.
• If your application is approved, you will still need a Building Permit to review the Building Safety of the structure.

https://www.calgary.ca/development/h...direct=/garage


Now, because you need a DP your neighbours can comment on the file, and given the height, you can be pretty sure a concern from at least one of the ones sharing an alley will be sight lines(and noise worries). I don't have any idea how often these get blocked, but you don't see a lot of new ones going up so my suspicion is my original generalization isn't too far off the mark.

[TorqueDog]

I would say the fact that fences themselves have height restrictions and most of these houses are going to be two-storeys (at least) so you can already see into your neighbour's yard would make the "BuT tHeY cAn LoOk InTo My YaRd!!!1!" argument a pretty silly one.

I wanted one on top of my last garage too.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, now show us how much virgin land isn't plowed under for lots, utilities, and roads to/from/in suburban communities.

Yeah, losing that green space in the inner city is a bummer.
But people need to live somewhere, and putting more people on less land is a more efficient solution in the long run.

Yep, the surface area for roads, utilities, giant houses, driveways, front & backyards, & suburban power centers with massive parking lots, etc, erases a significantly greater portion of greenspace than density based development. The vast majority of suburban parks and playgrounds also sit empty and unused most of the time as compared to ones next to denser areas. That doesn't include all the emissions from cars snaking around all the residential roads and jammed and waiting, trying to make it into Beacon Hill Costco, etc. every day.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I would say the fact that fences themselves have height restrictions and most of these houses are going to be two-storeys (at least) so you can already see into your neighbour's yard would make the "BuT tHeY cAn LoOk InTo My YaRd!!!1!" argument a pretty silly one.

I wanted one on top of my last garage too.

I think we don't see more flat roof garages with patios or gardens because of cost. They need to over engineer them a bit more for additional weight plus the waterproofing is more expensive. Your typical builder won't be cutting into their margin for something like that. We looked some homes on 17th Street SW that had rooftop patios, on the house not garage, and it was really sweet.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I think we don't see more flat roof garages with patios or gardens because of cost. They need to over engineer them a bit more for additional weight plus the waterproofing is more expensive. Your typical builder won't be cutting into their margin for something like that. We looked some homes on 17th Street SW that had rooftop patios, on the house not garage, and it was really sweet.

In a past life, I used to live in such a (town)house... A cool concept, but far better idea in principle than practice.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by you&me

In a past life, I used to live in such a (town)house... A cool concept, but far better idea in principle than practice.

I can see it being not totally practical or useful but it is still better than having a completely useless attic space.

We also looked at a house right beside the old Children's Hospital and that place had the best layout with a front drive double garage that had a huge patio on the garage roof. It was very useable because it had access from the main living space and a pretty nice view (but I was too poor to spend that much money on a house.)

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, now show us how much virgin land isn't plowed under for lots, utilities, and roads to/from/in suburban communities.

Yeah, losing that green space in the inner city is a bummer.
But people need to live somewhere, and putting more people on less land is a more efficient solution in the long run.

You show us how much virgin land isn't plowed.

I wasn't adding an opinion. The facts are the facts and it's fine by me if people personally want to ignore them.

I made no such suggestion I was opposed to putting more people on less land, I'm hugely in favour of significant limits being put on greenfield development, especially when you look here and think of how many people you could house on this useless inner city region.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It doesn't make significantly more room for trees as max lot coverage goes way up. Reduced front setbacks reduce the type of trees that large trees are replaced with (if they're even replaced). The remaining space is a small deck between the unit and the garage.

You're completely missing the point. Of course a 40 story condo building downtown has less trees than a SFH on a quarter acre lot.

Imagine the 500 families living in the 40 story condo building each buying their own house with a yard. Now imagine how much greenfield land got turned into houses to build this development.

The 40 story building had one block worth of sidewalks and roads and driveways. The 500 SFH to replace it would have ~25 blocks worth of roads and sidewalks, and 25 driveways.

Now because we had to build 25 blocks of greenfield, we need more arterial roads extending out to this development, and have more people commuting distances that extend past the 40 story condo, even if it was on the edge of the city.

The math is no different for medium density, just the scale is adjusted. Replacing 2 single family houses with a 6 wide row house with basement suites is 12 families on the land of what was 2, so 10 houses of land and roads that didn't need to get built that can be your green trees or whatever.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

You're completely missing the point. Of course a 40 story condo building downtown has less trees than a SFH on a quarter acre lot.

I must have missed the point, because I'm not sure it was clear to begin with then. Where did I mention a 40 storey building downtown in the comparison and why are you jumping to that?

You're also building your own closed scenario where 12 suburban lots is a solely equal trade to 12 inner city townhouse? units, or is it now 500 family units in a 40 storey condo building downtown. That's one beefy condo building. You'd need at least 84 storeys to accommodate that.

Anyway, back to the point you're replying to me because I responded to this:

land use of the denser development is WAY less. This means significantly more room for trees etc.

Land use of denser development is way less than 12 single family lots in a greenfield community.


Ok, but focus on the real world application of what you're stating. More trees in your hypothetical calculation doesn't map to a real world application. It equates to no trees for anyone. Not more.

You're creating more room for trees in a calculation, but the "more room" is the undeveloped greenfield edge of the city. No one is planting new trees on the unused greenfield land.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

You're creating more room for trees in a calculation, but the "more room" is the undeveloped greenfield edge of the city. No one is planting new trees on the unused greenfield land.

Ok, if we're going to get pedantic about literal trees within the city limits, let's just knock down the apartment buildings and re-zone the city like Bearspaw and Springbank, and the city can sprawl all the way to Bragg Creek. Never mind we just made the landscape 1/3 asphalt for a massive area, with people driving 30,000km per year on average, there will be an opportunity to plant trees to mitigate it.

https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/cl...ink-than-trees

Unlike forests, grasslands sequester most of their carbon underground, while forests store it mostly in woody biomass and leaves. When wildfires cause trees to go up in flames, the burned carbon they formerly stored is released back to the atmosphere. When fire burns grasslands, however, the carbon fixed underground tends to stay in the roots and soil, making them more adaptive to climate change.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52231018301936

Calculation of pollution removal capacity using local environmental data indicates that grasslands and shrublands remove a total of 6.42 million tonnes of air pollutants in the United States

Nowak et al., 2006; (Nowak et al. (2006)) estimated the total pollution removal by urban trees to be about 711,000 tonnes per year.

[timun]

Lol, this discussion is borne from someone quite literally not able to see the forest for the trees.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Ok, if we're going to get pedantic about literal trees within the city limits, let's just knock down the apartment buildings and re-zone the city like Bearspaw and Springbank, and the city can sprawl all the way to Bragg Creek. Never mind we just made the landscape 1/3 asphalt for a massive area, with people driving 30,000km per year on average, there will be an opportunity to plant trees to mitigate it.

https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/cl...ink-than-trees

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52231018301936

You're having a whole discussion on a different topic all by your lonesome.

It's not pedantic. The original comment by flamesfever was:

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Just like densifying is environmentally friendly, when many trees are removed, the green areas in the backyards disappear, and the air quality in the neighborhoods and the lower elevation area of the downtown area becomes worse.

It looks like you've forgotten what your intention of your response to that was, or perhaps you missed the point completely and now that's gotten you off the rails.

I showcased how he's right, that the green areas in the backyards DO disappear with redevelopment.

I can't say I agree with the rest of the comment as "air" doesn't remain local and stagnant over one's backyard.

Now you're stretching and moving goalposts to talk about driving, and knocking down apartment buildings.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by timun

Lol, this discussion is borne from someone quite literally not able to see the forest for the trees.

You can name them.

[timun]

I could, but I don't want them to think they're being picked on.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by timun

I could, but I don't want them to think they're being picked on.

Isn't that what we're all here for? At least I am.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Just like densifying is environmentally friendly, when many trees are removed

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It looks like you've forgotten what your intention of your response to that was, or perhaps you missed the point completely and now that's gotten you off the rails.

I showcased how he's right, that the green areas in the backyards DO disappear with redevelopment.

Yes, but take a moment to look at the bigger picture. Densifying is absolutely environmentally friendly, regardless of what happens to a few hyper-specific trees, which is what I've provided several (cited) points to support.

So move along from the specific trees example. Are you trying to agree with flamesfever's assertion that densifying is bad for the environment, and opposing all of the facts and evidence I've presented to show that it is, in fact, not?

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Yes, but take a moment to look at the bigger picture. Densifying is absolutely environmentally friendly, regardless of what happens to a few hyper-specific trees, which is what I've provided several (cited) points to support.

So move along from the specific trees example. Are you trying to agree with flamesfever's assertion that densifying is bad for the environment, and opposing all of the facts and evidence I've presented to show that it is, in fact, not?

flamesfever didn't say densifying is bad for the environment.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

flamesfever didn't say densifying is bad for the environment.

He's said it multiple times.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

He's said it multiple times.

I generally only fully read posts that you've thanked and then I skim the rest.