Calgary's new gated, island community

[Ducay]

A good portion of the "Fancy" part of Aspen (Aspen Ridge) around is what I'd describe as McMansions.

Multimillion dollar homes with roughly 100sq ft of yard, the minimum setbacks between houses on all the sides. Basically feels like your typical cheap new suburb in Calgary, except with ridiculously overpriced houses. No view, little privacy, all for a starting price of $2M

If you're spending over 2M, you better be getting some land or at least a baller view.

[Calgary14]

Originally Posted by Ducay

A good portion of the "Fancy" part of Aspen (Aspen Ridge) around is what I'd describe as McMansions.

Multimillion dollar homes with roughly 100sq ft of yard, the minimum setbacks between houses on all the sides. Basically feels like your typical cheap new suburb in Calgary, except with ridiculously overpriced houses. No view, little privacy, all for a starting price of $2M

If you're spending over 2M, you better be getting some land or at least a baller view.

I just don't understand that part of town. I'm always blown away by how high the house prices are (and how little you get for your money)

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

I just don't understand that part of town. I'm always blown away by how high the house prices are (and how little you get for your money)

Cool kids club or keepin' up with the Joneses. I also hear it's just 5 minutes to downtown from there.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Not really. Almost all of the million dollar houses in Calgary are wood construction. Out in the boonies and Mount Royal.

Originally Posted by rain_e

The term McMansion just irritates me. I'm curious what is your definition of a 'mansion' then? Pretty sure the majority of homes in Calgary are built with wood.

Most of the high end stuff I see from custom builders is going up with plywood, hence my OSB comment. I don't really feel like discussing the merits of OSB over plywood either, so we can skip that part if we are all in agreement

The Wikipedia article has a way better name than McMansion anyway...

Garage Mahal!

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Calgary14

I just don't understand that part of town. I'm always blown away by how high the house prices are (and how little you get for your money)

I am in that part of town. Most of the houses are well under $2M (I know there are a few pockets of $2+). Pretty nice area for kids, reasonable commute to downtown and bigger home is why I moved. Don't know if I am in a McMansion or not, doesn't really matter. The fact is, inner city infills are pushing $1.5M+ with no view. Ridiculous housing prices are just a fact of life in this city (for now, at least)

[stampsx2]

The "my inner city neighborhood is so much better than your cookie cutter suburb house" is really getting old in this forum. I've worked with hundreds of both types of homes and it really is nothing more than an opinion.

Contractors fifty years ago didn't do a better job than today's contractors. People are still people.
Fifty years ago tools didn't even come close to the tools contractors have now. Example: a perfect cut, compressor, foundation pour, nail gun, etc.
Materials being used now are much more advanced such as todays fire resistant insulation versus asbestos.
Structural engineering has advanced and many of the old designs and mistakes that are being seen in old houses are being corrected in new designs.
Older houses weren't held to the same inspection standards and safety regulations they are now.
The communities are being designed with walkability and central community shopping in mind. Communities are designed with feeder roads to major highways instead of the old grid system which are less safe with people cutting or speeding through.
Older communities don't have their utilities buried and wires are run aerially.


I appreciate that some on here like inner city living and there's nothing wrong with that, the mature tree's are one advantage. But saying your inner city house is so much better than a cookie cutter house is really just your opinion, and a tiring one at that.

/rant

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

The "my inner city neighborhood is so much better than your cookie cutter suburb house" is really getting old in this forum. I've worked with hundreds of both types of homes and it really is nothing more than an opinion.

Contractors fifty years ago didn't do a better job than today's contractors. People are still people.
Fifty years ago tools didn't even come close to the tools contractors have now. Example: a perfect cut, compressor, foundation pour, nail gun, etc.
Materials being used now are much more advanced such as todays fire resistant insulation versus asbestos.
Structural engineering has advanced and many of the old designs and mistakes that are being seen in old houses are being corrected in new designs.
Older houses weren't held to the same inspection standards and safety regulations they are now.
The communities are being designed with walkability and central community shopping in mind. Communities are designed with feeder roads to major highways instead of the old grid system which are less safe with people cutting or speeding through.
Older communities don't have their utilities buried and wires are run aerially.


I appreciate that some on here like inner city living and there's nothing wrong with that, the mature tree's are one advantage. But saying your inner city house is so much better than a cookie cutter house is really just your opinion, and a tiring one at that.

/rant

How do you see the houses in this gated community (for example) holding up in 2064? Or 2114?

Lakeview (for example) was an annexed cookie-cutter suburb ~50 years ago, and those houses seem pretty damn sturdy to me. And they could (like lots of houses in this town) still be around in another 50 years.

Some of the newer ones, not so much.

Is there some sort of guiding philosophy towards homebuilding now? Like a number (even a vague one) about how long they are expected to last?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How do you see the houses in this gated community (for example) holding up in 2064? Or 2114?

Lakeview (for example) was an annexed cookie-cutter suburb ~50 years ago, and those houses seem pretty damn sturdy to me. And they could (like lots of houses in this town) still be around in another 50 years.

Some of the newer ones, not so much.

Is there some sort of guiding philosophy towards homebuilding now? Like a number (even a vague one) about how long they are expected to last?

Do you really believe that the houses built in these newer neighborhoods will "crumble". I suspect they are so overbuilt they will be around in 100 years.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Do you really believe that the houses built in these newer neighborhoods will "crumble". I suspect they are so overbuilt they will be around in 100 years.

Well, since I didn't say "crumble", I don't really know why you are asking me if I really believe they will "crumble".

Maybe they will last a hundred years. My impression is that that's not the case. I could be wrong though. That's why I asked someone who is in the business.

[JamMan23]

There are very few people that want to live in a 100 year old home. People are becoming more accustomed to "use it and replace it" (iPhones, cars, etc...)

Who cares if the home will "last" 100 years? In 100 years the only thing it will be good for is bulldozing so something else can be built there.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by JamMan23

There are very few people that want to live in a 100 year old home. People are becoming more accustomed to "use it and replace it" (iPhones, cars, etc...)

There are more than a few. Go drive around Elbow Park/Mount Royal and the surrounding areas. Take note of how many ~100 year old houses are still kicking around and people paid very good money for. They are numerous.

[JamMan23]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

There are more than a few. Go drive around Elbow Park/Mount Royal and the surrounding areas. Take note of how many ~100 year old houses are still kicking around and people paid very good money for. They are numerous.

They paid very good money for the land, despite the crappy home sitting on the land. Either 10's of thousands of dollars go into renovating it, or they knock it down and build an infill, which is happening all over the city. Old homes are a liability, not an asset, the land is the asset.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by JamMan23

All homes are a liability, not an asset, the land is the asset.

Fixed. But agree 100%.

Who claims that inner city homes are valuable because they're old? I don't know anyone who has ever said the inner city homes are better because the small tiny homes are often crooked with asbestos based crumbling plaster and 4 electrical circuits that routinely blow while the house is freezing because it's poorly insulated and everything creaks.

The value in a home will always be the land and that's why homes in premium locations fetch a higher price.

[Bill Bumface]

Lots of neighborhoods have old homes that get knocked down left and right (Mountview, Renfrew, Bridgeland, Mount Pleasant, Killarny etc)

The fact is, the people that own the houses in Mount Royal and Elbow Park and areas such as that have the money to level those and rebuild, but there is relatively little infill development in those communities (a bit more post flood) because the above examples had very small houses sitting on very valuable lots.

In Mount Royal and Elbow park, the houses were big and nice when they were built, and people happen to like them, so they are kept. Go drive anywhere in Elbow Park and check out the housing stock. There is tons of stuff built in the early 20th century that is still there today. People like it. If they didn't, the bulldozer would have come and gone.

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well, since I didn't say "crumble", I don't really know why you are asking me if I really believe they will "crumble".

Maybe they will last a hundred years. My impression is that that's not the case. I could be wrong though. That's why I asked someone who is in the business.

How will they NOT last a hundred years (or whatever term of time you want to use)?

As the above poster said the material, quality, checks, design are all improved vastly over the builds of 30, 40, 50+ years ago. How do you figure they won't last as long or longer?

[SebC]

I would assume that older houses are actually massively overbuilt - less engineering to ensure that only the minimum material is used.

[TurdFerguson]

They don't make them like they used to. Now get off my lawn!

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How do you see the houses in this gated community (for example) holding up in 2064? Or 2114?

Lakeview (for example) was an annexed cookie-cutter suburb ~50 years ago, and those houses seem pretty damn sturdy to me. And they could (like lots of houses in this town) still be around in another 50 years.

Some of the newer ones, not so much.

Is there some sort of guiding philosophy towards homebuilding now? Like a number (even a vague one) about how long they are expected to last?

To me what matters most in a house is the stuff you don't see. Those homes sure might seem sturdy, but I'd hate to look at the plumbing or electrical.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by SebC

I would assume that older houses are actually massively overbuilt - less engineering to ensure that only the minimum material is used.

I think in some cases yes, in some cases not at all. For example, we added onto our 103 year old house this year. The trusses for the addition were stick framed out of 2x8. I think the existing was 2x4 or 2x6.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well, since I didn't say "crumble", I don't really know why you are asking me if I really believe they will "crumble".

Maybe they will last a hundred years. My impression is that that's not the case. I could be wrong though. That's why I asked someone who is in the business.

New houses meet a pretty tough building code. Comparing a 60s-70s era house to one built today would be similar to comparing cars of like years. The older one might be better in one or two areas, but the newer one is far superior in every other way.

They just seem cheaper because they use a bunch of new fangled crap like veneer cabinets, and veneer stone, and chinese lights, and laminate floors, and everything else that is mass produced at minimal cost. But structurally, there is no comparison. Same with efficiency in every area.