Ugly Suburban Sprawl Capital of Canada

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Possibly but also likely that those are just the trees remaining from a forest with the rest (on the left) having been a field or farmland of some sort . Don't forget that Quebec was founded by people on the Seigneurial system . Plots of land weren't square or uniform . That just means that the difficulty is with securing a contiguous parcel of land and , as a result , if they don't wanna sell then you've gotta wait . Seigneurial plots don't lend themselves well to typical suburban development .

For all intensive purposes its impossible to salvage trees within a residential subdivision.

The houses in the areas with the mature trees are clearly of a different era.

As for developers - I am not sure that most of them are fond of building on smaller lots. If you look at what they built in North America in the period when they could pretty much do what they wanted, they tended to build on 60 x 120 lots. They are generally building on smaller lots because municipalities are imposing the smaller lots on them. And many developers skip to outlying municipalities where there are fewer restrictions on lot sizes.

At 3000 or so per front foot (on the cheaper end of the scale in edmonton) that 60' lot is going to cost $180 000...thats simply not realistic for the vast majority of people looking at building a house.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

At 3000 or so per front foot (on the cheaper end of the scale in edmonton) that 60' lot is going to cost $180 000...thats simply not realistic for the vast majority of people looking at building a house.

Going by your measure, then a 50 foot lot is $150,000, and a 40 foot lot is $120,000. I can appreciate that 30-60,000 dollars is a lot of money, but when you are going to plop down 400-500,000 dollars for a house, 300 or 400 bucks more a month on your mortgage may make a difference, but it's not a deal-breaker for people who are in that market.

In any event, the prices for lots tend to be bumped up because of municipal, regional or provincial regulations. The relative scarcity of properly-zoned developable land (since in many places in Canada there is lots of open land but you can't build houses on it) pushes up the price of land that you *can* build on.

If it was a free-for-all and developers could build what they want, where they want, then the price of land would go down. And a 60 foot lot in the suburbs of Edmonton certainly wouldn't cost $180,000...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Spocket

Possibly but also likely that those are just the trees remaining from a forest with the rest (on the left) having been a field or farmland of some sort . Don't forget that Quebec was founded by people on the Seigneurial system . Plots of land weren't square or uniform . That just means that the difficulty is with securing a contiguous parcel of land and , as a result , if they don't wanna sell then you've gotta wait . Seigneurial plots don't lend themselves well to typical suburban development .

Interesting observations. Some landowners don't want to sell, so suburban land sitting undeveloped for decades doesn't necessarily mean there is no demand for new housing in a given area. There are several parcels like that near where I live that are almost completely hemmed by urban/suburban development, yet the owners (farmers) don't want to sell.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

For all intensive purposes

Oh my God.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

For all intensive purposes its impossible to salvage trees within a residential subdivision.

The houses in the areas with the mature trees are clearly of a different era.



At 3000 or so per front foot (on the cheaper end of the scale in edmonton) that 60' lot is going to cost $180 000...thats simply not realistic for the vast majority of people looking at building a house.

FYI They did a good job of saving hundreds (and hundreds) of existing trees in Currie Barracks and Garrison Woods in Calgary. You must be referring to something else.

[flar]

Not impossible at all. Trees can most definitely be saved, it's just a lot easier to bulldoze everything. Scorched earth policy.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by kw5150

FYI They did a good job of saving hundreds (and hundreds) of existing trees in Currie Barracks and Garrison Woods in Calgary. You must be referring to something else.

Within lots or within MR and other open spaces? Wait, Were these old barracks where the site was cleared years ago and graded....Thats entirely different than maintaining a forest in peoples yards.

Not impossible at all. Trees can most definitely be saved, it's just a lot easier to bulldoze everything. Scorched earth policy.

Cool. Then show me a natually forested area where run off sheet flows perpendicular to roads (you cant have run off from ones persons yards enter their neighbours) at just enough of a slope to allow drainage but not to much where it becomes akward to establish first floor elevations that work properly in both the front and rear of the housing pocket, and where the forest along these road ROWS grades nicely to allow any major run off to flow into neighbourhood storm pond....

Developers circle jerk over ammenity lots, especially when they can set aside their required park space and use existing natural features....it costs them nothing and they get a sweet premium. If it was feasible to encorporate existing trees into new subdivisions they would.

but hey, what do i know.

[flar]

Like I say, it can be done, but only rich people get to live in subdivisions with forests.

[SHOFEAR]

Seriously? If it works for acreages and estates then surely the same can be applied to duplex and single family homes on the edges of cities...

Even if you manage to luck out and save trees in front of the housing pocket on a typical lot, by the time you dig down to install water/storm/sanitary/gas/phone/electrical your entire front yard has been trenched. Any surface feature is going to be destroyed....What's the solution...directional drilling?

You guys better stick to circle jerking over high rises....

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Seriously? If it works for acreages and estates then surely the same can be applied to duplex and single family homes on the edges of cities...

Even if you manage to luck out and save trees in front of the housing pocket on a typical lot, by the time you dig down to install water/storm/sanitary/gas/phone/electrical your entire front yard has been trenched. Any surface feature is going to be destroyed....What's the solution...directional drilling?

You guys better stick to circle jerking over high rises....

You are absolutely right about the front yard - not much hope to save anything there. However, I do find that they sometimes go exaggeratedly crazy in the back yard, and raze everything all the way to the property line, even though more often than not there won't be any work done more than 20 feet from the back of the house. At least, not from the moment it is razed until the house is finished and they simply grade it for the topsoil and sod.

Of course, many new home buyers probably wouldn't want a backyard full of mature trees anyway, but it would be at least nice if they were given the choice.

Finally, I believe many municipalities now have rules on the books that require builders to preserve mature trees *when possible*. I am not sure how strictly enforced these requirements are...

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You are absolutely right about the front yard - not much hope to save anything there. However, I do find that they sometimes go exaggeratedly crazy in the back yard, and raze everything all the way to the property line, even though more often than not there won't be any work done more than 20 feet from the back of the house. At least, not from the moment it is razed until the house is finished and they simply grade it for the topsoil and sod.

Of course, many new home buyers probably wouldn't want a backyard full of mature trees anyway, but it would be at least nice if they were given the choice.

Finally, I believe many municipalities now have rules on the books that require builders to preserve mature trees *when possible*. I am not sure how strictly enforced these requirements are...

99% of the time developers will save mature trees at the rear of the yard. They typically have to designate x% of the land as parks why wouldnt they use parkland that is already treed.

Its not like we have a ton of forests here anyway...when you can you encorporate it.

[flar]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Seriously? If it works for acreages and estates then surely the same can be applied to duplex and single family homes on the edges of cities...

Even if you manage to luck out and save trees in front of the housing pocket on a typical lot, by the time you dig down to install water/storm/sanitary/gas/phone/electrical your entire front yard has been trenched. Any surface feature is going to be destroyed....What's the solution...directional drilling?

You guys better stick to circle jerking over high rises....

You asked, I just showed you a subdivision under construction in the middle of a forest.

[SHOFEAR]

yeah, maybe something somewhat related to the context?

[Dado]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Within lots or within MR and other open spaces? Wait, Were these old barracks where the site was cleared years ago and graded....Thats entirely different than maintaining a forest in peoples yards.



Cool. Then show me a natually forested area where run off sheet flows perpendicular to roads (you cant have run off from ones persons yards enter their neighbours) at just enough of a slope to allow drainage but not to much where it becomes akward to establish first floor elevations that work properly in both the front and rear of the housing pocket, and where the forest along these road ROWS grades nicely to allow any major run off to flow into neighbourhood storm pond....

One solution is to use tree wells. That allows the grading to be changed (usually raised) around the trees without damaging them. The wells can even be used as part of the stormwater management system.

But before doing any of that, the first step would be to plot out where all the major or desirable trees are and then carry out the planning accordingly. Trees can be retained in all sorts of places, not just yards. They can be retained in boulevards, medians and roundabouts. With all the curly roads that developers love these days, leaving behind little odd bits of land here and there for trees is another possibility.

Developers circle jerk over ammenity lots, especially when they can set aside their required park space and use existing natural features....it costs them nothing and they get a sweet premium. If it was feasible to encorporate existing trees into new subdivisions they would.

but hey, what do i know.

Developers don't do it because of any or all of the following: not required to, expense, lack of vision, lack of knowledge that it can be done at all (the average developer is shockingly ignorant about plenty of things), too much hassle (it requires extra planning and care before and during development, as well as restricting the operation of heavy equipment), etc.

Some of the early subdivisions of Kanata west of Ottawa were built in a way that retained extensive tree cover because the developer actually had some vision. Not only did they do this for detached houses, they even did it for townhouses too. They somehow managed to accomplish this in rolling topography - and without the benefit of using tree wells. In some places, they - gasp - left outcrops of Canadian Shield behind too! As a result, some houses didn't even get front lawns! They had to make do with woodland gardens. The Horror!

[Darkoshvilli]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I believe that the province of Quebec has close to 50% of all the residential swimming pools in Canada.

No wonder there's a drowning here everyday.

[freeweed]

Discussion about saving trees in new developments just seems foreign to me. Winnipeg and Calgary (where I've spent the majority of my life) had effectively zero trees before humans moved in. Now they're practically dense forests compared to the surrounding prairie. It just takes decades to see it happen.

[Dado]

That was one of the things that impressed me about some - though not all - suburban developers in Calgary: the number of trees that they plant.

In an odd twist, the fact of putting in all these hardened surfaces means that run-off from them can be collected together to sustain trees that would not get enough water in the natural state. When one stands atop Nose Hill and looks down on Calgary it's incredibly 'green' (in the sense of tree cover) compared to the prairies to the east.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Dado

One solution is to use tree wells. That allows the grading to be changed (usually raised) around the trees without damaging them. The wells can even be used as part of the stormwater management system.

But before doing any of that, the first step would be to plot out where all the major or desirable trees are and then carry out the planning accordingly. Trees can be retained in all sorts of places, not just yards. They can be retained in boulevards, medians and roundabouts. With all the curly roads that developers love these days, leaving behind little odd bits of land here and there for trees is another possibility.



Developers don't do it because of any or all of the following: not required to, expense, lack of vision, lack of knowledge that it can be done at all (the average developer is shockingly ignorant about plenty of things), too much hassle (it requires extra planning and care before and during development, as well as restricting the operation of heavy equipment), etc.

Some of the early subdivisions of Kanata west of Ottawa were built in a way that retained extensive tree cover because the developer actually had some vision. Not only did they do this for detached houses, they even did it for townhouses too. They somehow managed to accomplish this in rolling topography - and without the benefit of using tree wells. In some places, they - gasp - left outcrops of Canadian Shield behind too! As a result, some houses didn't even get front lawns! They had to make do with woodland gardens. The Horror!

See my last dozen posts...typically developers do encorporate existing tree stands into their development as parkspace.

Individual trees in boulevards or anything like that isn't going to happen. Here its pretty common to have cuts/fills ranging from -2,2 meters. Tree wells wont work. Plus our subgrade for roads is typically in the nieghbourhood of .75 meters. So any significant sized adjacent tree is going to have its roots destroyed.

I'd love to see some pictures of the older subdivision you mentioned....but keep in mind older subdivisions were much easier. Standards were minimal, as long as it worked it was ok. You just cant do that now.

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by Dado

That was one of the things that impressed me about some - though not all - suburban developers in Calgary: the number of trees that they plant.

In an odd twist, the fact of putting in all these hardened surfaces means that run-off from them can be collected together to sustain trees that would not get enough water in the natural state. When one stands atop Nose Hill and looks down on Calgary it's incredibly 'green' (in the sense of tree cover) compared to the prairies to the east.

Just wondering, have you SEEN Winnipeg? I could understand Regina and Medicine Hat, but Winnipeg NOT Green?!

[Ayreonaut]

Originally Posted by armorand93

Just wondering, have you SEEN Winnipeg? I could understand Regina and Medicine Hat, but Winnipeg NOT Green?!

I think he meant the prairies adjacent to the city.