[roman]

I have been debating whether to write my experience about building an infill home in the inner city but have decided to let everyone know how frustrating it has been to deal with the City of Calgary and the community association. I used to live in suburbia for many years and built a couple of homes in suburban neighbourhoods which I contracted myself and except for the odd changes which had to be made to the house plans, there were relatively few issues in dealing with city hall. I decided that since I work downtown I would move to the inner city, take transit to work and be close to all of the downtown amenities. I did move for selfish reasons but I also felt like I was helping out the environment and revitalizing the inner city, albeit in a very small way. However, I was made to feel like I was intruding on sacred ground and the if things were not exactly the way the planners or the community liked, then I had better pack my belongings and get out. I am not a confrontational person, and my style of home and exterior colors were all pretty traditional and blended nicely with the neighbourhood. I love trees, but unfortunately there were some trees on my property that had to be removed (which I replaced with newer trees as mandated by the city) There were also trees on the city easement adjacent to my property which could not be removed even though they were old and too large for the area on which they sat - I was told by a city manager that I was lucky to have gotten the permit to build this house and that if it was up to him noone would be able to ruin the inner city with new infills, and that if I even so much as touched a branch on those trees that I would be fined and that even though they are owned by the city and sat on city property that I would be responsible for their upkeep. However if I were to pay approximately 30,000 dollars I could have them removed. If these trees were so important to the city why would they allow them to be removed for any price? Again, I like the trees and have kept them but why such antagonism by the city? They also witheld the building permit until such time as I paid to have things changed that were adjacent to my property for which I had absolutely no responsibility. There are so many more situations that came up that caused alot of stress and cost alot of money, and in retrospect I should have done my homework and made sure of certain things before embarking on this project, but I really didn't realize that it would be so different from building in a brand new suburban area of the city. Yes, alot of people would love to move to the inner city, but the reality is that it is expensive, and in my particular case was a very very stressful experience not only because of the city nickle and dimeing me every step of the way, but also the community association which made sure to tell me that I was intruding on their property and that unless the plan was absolutely to their liking - I would not get a building permit. As stated above I have been debating whether to tell this story but after reading so many posts about how bad suburbia is and why do people ever chose to live in suburbia, I just thought that I would let people here know that city hall and the community associations should make it easier - not harder for people to move to the inner city. I know that some of you may think that I am exagerating or that I may have been the one who was hard to deal with, but really I am just an average citizen who loves Calgary and loves not having to commute downtown by car anymore. Perhaps other people who have built in the inner city may have had a better experience, but I have been comparing notes with some of my acquaintances who have also built close to downtown and the story seems to be the same.

[wild wild west]

You've hit on a very interesting point here that often gets overlooked in the intensification debate. A number of established communities (although there are exceptions) are notoriously hostile to development, and our own processes don't make it any better. And unfortunately aldermen are beholden to the Community Associations, which are often resistant to change. Our policies say "intensify", but our regulations make it much too difficult to do so.

Unfortunately Council has not shown much willingness to take a stand in encouraging intensification.

[Bigtime]

Thanks for sharing your experience with us roman. It does give us a very interesting insight into a unique situation that I don't believe any of us on here have done.

Like most of us on here have said, your kind of infill development is a very good thing for the inner city as well. It doesn't all have to be towers and big mid-rise buildings going up. Variety is the spice of life and it makes for a much better community ultimately.

So have you cleared all the hurdles and can now enjoy the fruits of your labour in the new place?

[roman]

yes, I am finally settled into my new home and even though this experience has left a bad taste in my mouth, I love my new area and all of the great amenities that it has to offer.

[MalcolmTucker]

^ Yeah, the biggest thing on the intensification debate that no one will touch at city hall is secondary suites. Just like infill, more people, same amount of roads = sky is falling according to community associations. Also, in your story shows how much power the bureaucrats are able to exercise in any government. It takes a strong council and citizens to keep them in check.

Here is to you for sticking it out! Any one lot build in anything but a new community is hard since you have to act like a mini developer since you are responsible for the curb fees (development fees that were brought in a couple years ago to help pay for infrastructure)

[MonctonGoldenFlames]

Sounds like the hassles I deal with on an everyday basis. I design infill homes and apply for the Development Permits on behalf of my clients, and dealing with the City and Communities is by far the most frustrating part of the whole process. I had a client who fit completely under the guidelines, but the Community Association was opposed to the 3rd floor. They put up enough of a stink that my client eventually decided to not build their dream home and to sell the property, taking a small loss in the process. Needless to say, the red tape involved with the City and CA's is what will prevent a lot of people from having a dream home built in the inner city.

Kudos to you for sticking it out, because it is worth it in the end.

[Wooster]

For most people that buy infill, they don't build it themselves but buy from a developer that has gone through the ringer a number of times and understands the delays, frustrations and how to maneuver the system.

That said, no one should really be treated the way you were.

[freeweed]

Sadly, NIMBYs aren't just a plague on suburbia.

[orion747]

So first and foremost - bravo for making the decision to move to the inner city. Sounds like you've done so for all the right reasons, and glad to hear that you've liking the amenities the area has to offer.

That said, let me give you the viewpoint some someone that's had some horrible infill developments surrounding me for 3 years continuous.

However, I was made to feel like I was intruding on sacred ground and the if things were not exactly the way the planners or the community liked, then I had better pack my belongings and get out.

Bottom line, you're joining an existing community - not a greenfield development in the burbs. You've got these pesky things called "neighbors" and there's a much greater sensitivity to new development in the inner city and how it blends in. Key word is blend - some change is good but when you're talking about a cannonball into a nice calm pool, expect your neighbors and Community to Association to get involved. What's awesome to you stands a good chance of being horrible to others.

Lets take my idiot neighbor #1. Buys two wonderful Craftsman style houses (can't remember lot width) in decent shape. These houses could be restored to something wonderful and were hardly tear downs. Charming and exactly what you'd expect for the area. Developer tears em down, stuffs a six unit towering contemporary monstrosity on the site. They paid the $30K to cut down towering trees there were yes, gnarled, but tall and probably 80 years old. They claim they were "sick" but quite frankly they cut them down to get backhoe access to the worksite. Construction takes forever and is ridiculously intrusive, on street parking is way busier, and worst of all, what was a charming character street in Calgary now has this monstrous stucco contemporary treeless development that would fit into suburbia. Do these people not realize that it's the trees and character of the neighborhood that draw people to the area?

Then there's idiot neighbor #2. Buyer is a well off suburbanite downsizing. Buys an 1100 square ft bungalow with a very small lot with a single detached garage on it. Tears it down (restore doesn't seem to be anyone's vocabulary) and crams a 2500 sq foot 3 story house with an oversized double detached garage on it. I will give them credit - they kept the trees (including a 100 yr old elm), the house design itself isn't offensive, though it is it's too big for the lot IMHO.

My biggest beef isn't with the house but the lack of good neighborly sense they had, treating it as if it was a greenfield development site. As a neighbor, how about giving me a ring and at least walking me through the plans. Heck, I'd take a "hey, we're about to start construction" notice. What do I get? A bobcat at 10:00am driving through my vegetable garden as they now claim the fence built 30 years ago is 1' on their side of the line. Unless I forkout to have the site resurveyed, what else am I supposed to do? I've never had anyone call me about restitution for all my now destroyed plants and planting boxes BTW. My other neighbor is even more livid - their house was built with some corner windows that offered a view of the tree lined street. They now stare into the brick and black siding chimney stack of the house. They have a relationship similar to India/Pakistan or Israel/Hezbollah now with the same warm thoughts about each other.

I did attend the community association meeting for idiot #2 and you'll be happy to know that my CA did nothing to stop the development. They looked at the plans, saw that it was a detached house and pretty much rubber stamped it, despite our objections to it's height and size. So while you felt the City was in your way, I felt the City pretty much shafts existing neighbors the ability to resist anything. I'd like to post some pics to illustrate the scope of change but I'll respect their right to privacy on this.

Your post had comments on trees which I thought stood out:
Again, I like the trees and have kept them but why such antagonism by the city?

Frankly, I'm happy the City is such a PITA on trees, and I actually wish they were far more draconian on them. In a bald ass prairie city like Calgary, it's simply too easy for people to cut down trees that have taken 75 some years down by writing a cheque. Despite where they lie, in the eyes of the community they are the neighborhood's trees, and shouldn't not one homeowners call as to whether they are taken from the neighborhood.

Why do some people take away the reasons why people move to character communities, and make them replicas of the burbs in a better location

Anyhoo - galactic karma has visited both idiot neighbors. I know that both paid a kings ransom to buy and build these properties and that they're about 35% underwater. At least. On both properties they occupied while their place was under construction.

Point of the story - unlike the burbs, when moving into established communities - expect people to give a damn.

[freeweed]

NIMBYism is OK when it's not in the burbs?

That being said, if people were actually going on your property, that's insane.

[wild wild west]

/\/\I agree with you 100% on the trees, no question. It's way too easy to chop down trees in this city. And it certainly sounds like your neighbours were remarkably insensitive when constructing their infills. However one point I think people in inner-city communities need to consider is, being that many of these communities have lower densities than the suburbs as it is, intensification is going to result in larger buildings and greater lot coverage in most cases. And secondly, one thing I do find remarkable about CA's in particular is the assertion that each resident is somehow an "owner" of the community, and thus have the right to dictate to new landowners what they can do with their land. This is not true - you own your lot, they own theirs.

[Bigtime]

Not too get off topic, but what was the reason that the big trees along Memorial had to get chopped down? I can't recall the answer.

[freeweed]

Not too get off topic, but what was the reason that the big trees along Memorial had to get chopped down? I can't recall the answer.

From what I recall, they were old and on their way towards rot.

Contrary to what people who live in historic neighbourhoods often believe, trees are not benign, eternal creatures who just magically exist forever. They require maintenance, pruning, and often, culling. A dying tree + windstorm is one hell of a safety risk, for one thing. Disease prevention can call for drastic measures. Letting our sanitation systems crumble in lieu of a single tree out of thousands is insanity. And I've seen all of it. For some reason trying to take out a single tree somehow means you're attempting a deforestation of a city. :koko:

Besides, fast-growing trees do not survive for millenia. Any tree in Calgary that's of any size will likely not last a century (at least not healthy).

[mersar]

Correct, the city's position was those trees were nearing the end of their life (a lot were planted soon after WWI if I recall), however they were to be replaced with clones of themselves where appropriate and other more native species where they were more suitable.

[roman]

I do appreciate the comments made by orion747 and in my opinion a good neighbour is one who cares about his/her community. The bright spot in my situation was my neighbour, who has thanked me for building next door and for building a new fence (the old fence was rotting and had partly fallen down) - I did not ask for any money from him for the fence. My objection is with the community association who dictated every little detail of how my house should look - such as the back door that had to be moved slightly which cost me to get the plan altered, or the style of windows or the type of stone work or brick work on the front of the house - and believe me I am very traditional in my style and nothing on my house was outlandish. I agree that homes should conform to the general feel of the neighbourhood, and quality must be maintained, but the community associations cannot and should not implement their particular tastes on everybody and should try to be more welcoming and work with the individual - not against them. With regards to the trees, I just found it repugnant that on the one hand the city takes the position that the trees are sacred and cannot be touched but on the other hand they tell you "oh by the way if you give me say ... 30,000 dollars, you can remove them." If the trees are so important to them, they should not be allowed to be removed under any circumstance. And also they don't even take care of them, there are so many branches that need to be pruned, I am afraid that a couple of the trees will fall down in a windstorm, but I am afraid to touch them for fear of getting fined.

[sauril]

That is bizarre about the trees, roman.

Can I ask which community you moved into?

[roman]

I would rather not disclose the community as I don't want people on this forum to view this community negatively, as it is a great community. But if you are driving in the inner city somewhere and you see big trees with bright yellow signs on them that were put on by the city, that say that the trees are protected, then you might be in front of my home.

[sauril]

Fair enough - I was just curious.

I can see the point from both sides. I live in Renfrew, and the opposition to the 16th ave project was full of ill-informed opinions, but at the same time, if someone wanted to cut down one tree on our street that makes a nice canopy, I'm sure they'd be in for a hell of a fight.

[Fiveway]

It's unfortunate that not enough people are educated or smart enough to make the kinds of decisions they're in the position to make. That's especially true of some bankers, city employees and community redevelopment committee members.

I know that my neighborhood is particularly adamant about quality materials and how redevelopment affects adjacent properties. If you want to build what would pass as a nice house in the suburbs, the redevelopment committee will run you through the ringer--especially bottom-line driven developers who sacrifice quality at every turn. Obviously their point is to ensure the character of the neighborhood, and as was suggested, to not allow redevelopment to destroy what makes the community attractive in the first place. This makes a lot of sense especially over a longer time period in communities facing a lot of redevelopment.

One developer alone can do significant damage given few limitations. I'm not going to comment on quality good or bad, but Len T Wong singlehandedly has significantly altered a couple blocks of Inglewood.

Personally I think it should be difficult to redevelop the inner city, because it's so easy to do things poorly. If your vision is off, if you hire a hack architect and if you're disrespectful of the community then you should be told to piss off. That of course goes to my first point that someone somewhere along the line needs vision and a clear understanding of the rules and can communicate those things effectively so changes can be made with a minimum of conflict.

I live in a tiny little house in Inglewood and I know that if someone bought the property next to mine and built a three story house, cut down my giant spruce trees, tore down my fence and didn't even bother to engage me in the process, I'd fucking spit on them every time I saw them. Of course I'm an enormous, spiteful dick who tends to over-react, but you get my point. I currently have a great relationship with my neighbors and we talk like friends every time we see each other in the yard. Which is part of what makes my community great. Something needs to be in place to protect the good qualities of communities while allowing development to progress. Finding balance and capable people is the hardest part.

[Bigtime]

One developer alone can do significant damage given few limitations. I'm not going to comment on quality good or bad, but Len T Wong singlehandedly has significantly altered a couple blocks of Inglewood.

Would those happen to be those few houses right across from the bird sanctuary on 9th avenue?

[Fiveway]

Yeah, there's a whole bunch in there actually spread over a couple blocks. But there's one block in particular where they've actually razed what seems to be the whole one side of a block and built mcmansions. Like I said, I won't comment on the quality of what was built because it's pretty subjective. But I'd be willing to put money on that type of development, poorly guided and relatively unfettered, over a period of time would destroy much of character of the neighborhood. Obviously development is needed, especially in low density, underserviced innercity neighborhoods like Inglewood. But I'm not sure clearcutting blocks for Mcmansions is the most beneficial approach for maintaining a vibrant community.

[MalcolmTucker]

Do neighborhoods have a right to retain character, isn't it just an argument against change? Who is to define said character, what if the character your wishing to maintain is lets say Tuscany in 40 years, when they are trying to intensify. I am sure people that like soleless suburbia will fight tooth and nail to defend it (see Varsity TOD).

If people want design standards, form a home owners association.

The only way to define worth is through the market. If the character of the neighborhood was worth more to the residents than an extra $100 grand for their old house, they wouldn't sell to an infiller.

What happend in Inglewood is classic gentrification. First individual houses make sense to do. Then since prices go up, the economy of scale cause you to do full blocks. Then again, costs go up and you end up with full scale walk ups.

[MichaelS]

I live in a tiny little house in Inglewood and I know that if someone bought the property next to mine and built a three story house, cut down my giant spruce trees, tore down my fence and didn't even bother to engage me in the process, I'd fucking spit on them every time I saw them. Of course I'm an enormous, spiteful dick who tends to over-react, but you get my point. I currently have a great relationship with my neighbors and we talk like friends every time we see each other in the yard. Which is part of what makes my community great. Something needs to be in place to protect the good qualities of communities while allowing development to progress. Finding balance and capable people is the hardest part.

I can understand why you would be upset if he cut down YOUR tree's, but why should he have to get permission if he wants to cut down trees that he owns? I can see the desire to retain neighbourhood character (but like Kyle pointed out, that is subjective) but as long as what a new lot owner decides to do is within city bylaws and building code, I really don't understand why a community association should be able to tell a land owner what he or she has to do with their own property.

If they community is that worried about it, look at having the community ARP changed.

[orion747]

This is a bit off topic from the original post, but I thought a few pics would help tell the story of idiot neighbor #2 a little better.

Before the Carnage
http://www.junkspam.warpmail.net/b4.JPG

we had just built a series of nice garden boxes against the fence. Given the bungalow nature of the house, and it's small dimensions, there was plenty of light. My s/o loved the little garden as we had just enough room for a hobby garden to grow a few veggies and strawberries - coming from the apartment condos of downtown, it was quite the thrill for her.

After the Carnage
http://www.junkspam.warpmail.net/after2.jpg

As I said before, we had zero warning that they were going to moving the property line 1ft in our direction and tearing up the fence. Literally we woke up to the sound of a Bobcat cutting driving though our garden to prep for the foundation dig. To this date we haven't heard so much as a peep from the neighbor as to restitution. Unfortunately, that site as a garden is toast. It has zero light with 3 stories in close proximity blocking off exposure to the south light the s/o no longer can garden. As you can see they've graded it to slope run off in our direction and you also don't see the sprayfoam splashback that's all over our house. As an added touch their contractors cut up some of the 4x4's we had built the garden boxes with to keep some tarps blowing away and various other uses. There are about 20 other ways they've violated our property but I'll spare everyone the bandwidth.

As I said. Un-freaking-believable.

[tkoe]

This is a bit off topic from the original post, but I thought a few pics would help tell the story of idiot neighbor #2 a little better.

Before the Carnage


we had just built a series of nice garden boxes against the fence. Given the bungalow nature of the house, and it's small dimensions, there was plenty of light. My s/o loved the little garden as we had just enough room for a hobby garden to grow a few veggies and strawberries - coming from the apartment condos of downtown, it was quite the thrill for her.

After the Carnage


As I said before, we had zero warning that they were going to moving the property line 1ft in our direction and tearing up the fence. Literally we woke up to the sound of a Bobcat cutting driving though our garden to prep for the foundation dig. To this date we haven't heard so much as a peep from the neighbor as to restitution. Unfortunately, that site as a garden is toast. It has zero light with 3 stories in close proximity blocking off exposure to the south light the s/o no longer can garden. As you can see they've graded it to slope run off in our direction and you also don't see the sprayfoam splashback that's all over our house. As an added touch their contractors cut up some of the 4x4's we had built the garden boxes with to keep some tarps blowing away and various other uses. There are about 20 other ways they've violated our property but I'll spare everyone the bandwidth.

As I said. Un-freaking-believable.

I'm only a mere law student (so take my comments for what they're worth -- not much), but from what I understand if there is a mistake in the property line and no one conducts a real property report to correct it ASAP it is possible for you to assume legal right to that land from your neighbour. I don't know what the time period is (it is reasonably long), but if it goes unchallenged and you are exerting clear control of the land and exlusion of others (meaning it is clearly attached to your property with a fence), then it can become yours. I suppose it is too late now, but you should have consulted a lawyer to see if you could have prevented your neighbour from trashing your yard...

[WhipperSnapper]

Do neighborhoods have a right to retain character, isn't it just an argument against change? Who is to define said character, what if the character your wishing to maintain is lets say Tuscany in 40 years, when they are trying to intensify. I am sure people that like soleless suburbia will fight tooth and nail to defend it


Neighbourhoods are a sum of the buildings that occupy them. If a building has the right to retain its character through some sort of designation then why not an entire neighbourhood? Intensification through wanton destruction of character is rarely a net positive.

Can't really say if this guy was given a bum rap or not without pictures.

[Fiveway]

Do neighborhoods have a right to retain character, isn't it just an argument against change? Who is to define said character, what if the character your wishing to maintain is lets say Tuscany in 40 years, when they are trying to intensify. I am sure people that like soleless suburbia will fight tooth and nail to defend it (see Varsity TOD).

If people want design standards, form a home owners association.

The only way to define worth is through the market. If the character of the neighborhood was worth more to the residents than an extra $100 grand for their old house, they wouldn't sell to an infiller.

What happend in Inglewood is classic gentrification. First individual houses make sense to do. Then since prices go up, the economy of scale cause you to do full blocks. Then again, costs go up and you end up with full scale walk ups.

Good point. You'd really have to carefully define what you're protecting, which goes to my original point of having a clear vision, understanding the impact changes will bring over the long run and being capable of clear communication at all stages.

My personal take on Inglewood is that I'd work to preserve as much of the history as I could, which includes stock from a number of eras.

Personally, it's the diversity that's important to me. I live in a 100 year old bungalow built from catalog. There's a Sturgess down the end of the block, a couple 50's bungalows, 80's duplexes, 90's infills, etc. The individual worth of those houses to the character of the community is questionable. But, as I said, I'm willing to lay money on the notion that if all those houses were replaced with Infills and McMansions, the neighborhood would lose a lot of it's appeal.

So again, if you want to redevelop an existing community it shouldn't be easy. There should be a process through which you work with the City, the community and your neighbors to not only mitigate the impact of your development and intensification but also, ideally, to help your development contribute positively to the neighborhood. What contributes positively to the neighborhood shouldn't really be all that hard to figure out, though nothing done by committee is ever easy.

But, I agree that shouldn't be a redevelopment committee telling a developer to create faux-historic knock-offs instead of simply building great architecture, or to change their stucco to brick or to move their sidewalk a foot to the left.

[Fiveway]

I can understand why you would be upset if he cut down YOUR tree's, but why should he have to get permission if he wants to cut down trees that he owns? I can see the desire to retain neighbourhood character (but like Kyle pointed out, that is subjective) but as long as what a new lot owner decides to do is within city bylaws and building code, I really don't understand why a community association should be able to tell a land owner what he or she has to do with their own property.

If they community is that worried about it, look at having the community ARP changed.

My case, and this is just my personal example, is much like Orion's, that I have a old house built in a time of innacuracy and flexibility. Both my large trees lie directly on the property line and have grown substantially on both properties. I'm not sure of the specific legalities, but I dont' think it would be possible to build an infill on either adjacent property without destroying half the root structure and removing most of the limbs on that side of each tree.

I'm sorry that I don't actually know the details of the law regarding this, but losing those trees would totally piss me off.

[Fiveway]

Orion, I feel for you. Your neighbor doesn't give a shit about you. If I were you I'd start a very loud, obnoxious rock band that kept awful hours and had insane parties.

[MalcolmTucker]

So again, if you want to redevelop an existing community it shouldn't be easy. There should be a process through which you work with the City, the community and your neighbors to not only mitigate the impact of your development and intensification but also, ideally, to help your development contribute positively to the neighborhood. What contributes positively to the neighborhood shouldn't really be all that hard to figure out, though nothing done by committee is ever easy.

The problem is most community associations are actually only concerned about A) the number of cars B) the associated traffic with said number of cars C) the perception of a right to street parking for existing residents. If they put those issues aside, except in cases where there is a land use redesignation (besides a subdivide), the neighborhood could work to mitigate everything else, and it would save alot of time and money. It would also allow the market to develop more organically.

Anything other than redevelopment that either decreases or maintains the existing density can always be cast as contributing negatively to the neighborhood.

For Inglewood, it is likely developers had to turn to entire blocks to develop, because the community association was making it so onerous to gentrify organically that they couldn't make money. Why try to push 20 applications through the city, when you know it costs the same to push 1.

[SubwayRev]

I'm only a mere law student (so take my comments for what they're worth -- not much), but from what I understand if there is a mistake in the property line and no one conducts a real property report to correct it ASAP it is possible for you to assume legal right to that land from your neighbour. I don't know what the time period is (it is reasonably long), but if it goes unchallenged and you are exerting clear control of the land and exlusion of others (meaning it is clearly attached to your property with a fence), then it can become yours. I suppose it is too late now, but you should have consulted a lawyer to see if you could have prevented your neighbour from trashing your yard...

I think you're right...it is called squatter's rights. I'm not sure of the time frame, but 10 years seems to ring a bell. Basically, like you said, if everybody was under the impression that the property line was in one spot for such a long time, legally, he wouldn't be able to develop there.

[defaultuser]

This is a bit off topic from the original post, but I thought a few pics would help tell the story of idiot neighbor #2 a little better.

Before the Carnage
http://www.junkspam.warpmail.net/b4.JPG

we had just built a series of nice garden boxes against the fence. Given the bungalow nature of the house, and it's small dimensions, there was plenty of light. My s/o loved the little garden as we had just enough room for a hobby garden to grow a few veggies and strawberries - coming from the apartment condos of downtown, it was quite the thrill for her.

After the Carnage
http://www.junkspam.warpmail.net/after2.jpg

As I said before, we had zero warning that they were going to moving the property line 1ft in our direction and tearing up the fence. Literally we woke up to the sound of a Bobcat cutting driving though our garden to prep for the foundation dig. To this date we haven't heard so much as a peep from the neighbor as to restitution. Unfortunately, that site as a garden is toast. It has zero light with 3 stories in close proximity blocking off exposure to the south light the s/o no longer can garden. As you can see they've graded it to slope run off in our direction and you also don't see the sprayfoam splashback that's all over our house. As an added touch their contractors cut up some of the 4x4's we had built the garden boxes with to keep some tarps blowing away and various other uses. There are about 20 other ways they've violated our property but I'll spare everyone the bandwidth.

As I said. Un-freaking-believable.

i'm not sure what is more unbelievable, honestly. looking at the before and after pictures (using the meter as a reference) there appears to be very little difference in the amount of sunlight. in fact, it looks sunnier in the after shot. it seems more likely that this "garden" was built with the intention of causing shit with the neighbour in advance of the new construction. i find it really hard to believe you had absolutely no idea this would happen. and then you wonder why they have avoided you?

[DAVEinEDMONTON]

Orion, I feel for you. Your neighbor doesn't give a shit about you. If I were you I'd start a very loud, obnoxious rock band that kept awful hours and had insane parties.

Orion...I cannot believe that the lot lines would have been out by 1 ft...I am sure it is now way too late to do anything about it.

Nasty neighbors are everywhere. Some of mine are no exception. I have a "crazy lady" who lives two houses away who is reeking havoc to her immediate neighbors. She does things such as shovel snow back onto people's sidewalks if they happen to shovel snow on her lawn. She will come out and create noise when her neighbors are outside entertaining in their back yards. When my neighbors try and paint the fence she will come out and water and spray the fence so it cannot be painted. The last time my neighbor called the cops and while in conference in her back yard about the issue the crazy lady soaked both the cop and my neighbor. During the summer months there is no less than one cop or bylaw officer on hand every week to deal with some issue between them. There is no less than 7 cameras between crazy lady's house and her two neighbors to control any trepassing. Crazy lady has three cameras all honed in on her neighbor's properties, not on her own so that she can spy on them. I cannot go into great lengths about what all she does but I can only say that I am glad that she is not my direct neighbor. All I get is her continued use of my front lawn as her own private dog run. :(

[orion747]

i'm not sure what is more unbelievable, honestly. looking at the before and after pictures (using the meter as a reference) there appears to be very little difference in the amount of sunlight. in fact, it looks sunnier in the after shot. it seems more likely that this "garden" was built with the intention of causing shit with the neighbour in advance of the new construction. i find it really hard to believe you had absolutely no idea this would happen. and then you wonder why they have avoided you?


Giggle. You do realize that the sun moves across the sky don't you? Think a 3 story structure might block that patch receives as the sun moves? A chicken wire fence was there before... think the new wood fence to replace it won't block that? You did remember that those building million dollar houses generally shy away from chicken wire and chain link fences didn't you?

I see you read as well as you use a shift key, so you probably missed the part about how I did go to the CA meeting and knew this monolith was coming in (but not before I had built these boxes the previous year). You'd also read about how it's the lack of communication and all around indifferent behavior from the neighbor that was PO'd about.

Orion...I cannot believe that the lot lines would have been out by 1 ft...I am sure it is now way too late to do anything about it.

So do I. That fence was built 30-40 years ago by my guesstimate (not built by me) and who knows how accurate the line was. They haven't shared their survey report either, and the cost of getting my own done isn't a call I can make on my own (condo). Even better is how I'm told they should have given up 1ft on the other side to the neighbor (entire lot is shifted 1ft apparently), but judging from the new fence they built, they don't plan on doing so. Nice.

Frankly DAVE, I reached the same conclusion as you did once final approval was given from the City - I knew the garden wasn't going to get any sunlight and that use of that side yard was going to be so limited after the house was built - really, it wasn't worth the fight. I'll be after them this year for restitution of soil, 4x4's and a bit of my time and I'll move on. I'm not about to let them ruin my enjoyment of this neighborhood.

[defaultuser]

Giggle. You do realize that the sun moves across the sky don't you? Think a 3 story structure might block that patch receives as the sun moves?

looking at the shadows in both photos, the house next door has no impact on the sunlight on your "garden." but please show some more misleading photos to prove this point.

A chicken wire fence was there before... think the new wood fence to replace it won't block that? You did remember that those building million dollar houses generally shy away from chicken wire and chain link fences didn't you?

ah yes, those bastards improving the look of the community. what will they do next? mow the lawn? i'd built a fence if i had to look at a house with electrical lines running on the outside, too.

I see you read as well as you use a shift key, so you probably missed the part about how I did go to the CA meeting and knew this monolith was coming in (but not before I had built these boxes the previous year).

i see you use petty insults to further your argument.


You'd also read about how it's the lack of communication and all around indifferent behavior from the neighbor that was PO'd about.

i'd rather read the neighbours point of view. i'm guessing it's much closer to the truth.

[Vascilli]

I quite like the "chickenwire" type fence. They have some real character and don't shut you in like a wood fence does.