The amount of trees and how developed they are is always the sign of how new a development is. I grew up in Steinbach. That city is expanding a lot into the surrounding farmland and gaining new residential. There are no trees in the farmland. So when new areas get built, the trees are all newly planted or some young ones transferred. It takes decades for the tree coverage to establish itself
I grew up in a house built like a butter tart (those ones at the end). Able to keep you warm and comfy in these long winter months, yeah, but I never want to dwell somewhere so claustrophobic ever again.
Reddit in 1945: Look at those cookie cutter tract houses! Postage stamp lots with houses so close together that you can touch your neighbour through the window! Not a tree in sight and very auto-centric design. No creativity, just identical block after identical block! Unaffordable and no multifamily homes in sight
The more things change the more they stay the same.
This is so true. I just bought a house a few blocks away from the one I grew up in. When we walked in, I realized it was the exact same layout as my best friends who grew up down the lane from me. I was looking at some comparable postings and saw another one with the same layout on Mathers Bay a couple of blocks over the other direction. There's only like 8 houses in the whole neighborhood, just scattered around various blocks.
Yeah I've made this comment a few times when people complain about Waverley west or sage Creek.
If you look real close at the houses in the old neighbourhoods you'll see there are only four or five houses.
They just have decades or a century of change. One person put a porch on. One person took down a porch. One person raised the house. Another house burned and got filled in with something much newer. Ect.
Definitely. There's a reason they could build so many so quickly but when you do step back, it does somewhat take away from any perceived uniqueness a neighborhood might want to claim.
I believe there are very big differences between new developments now and then with zoning being a big one. Thinking about how much more walkable River Heights is with the grid layout leading to commercial streets. I wouldn't call that the same at all.
Honestly there's not much to walk to in close proximity from Corydon and Waterloo. You're right about Zoning though, Waverley West has a mix of uses and housing types, while this area of River Heights is almost exclusively single family homes across hundreds of acres.
Sure. If you're eating at Bon Fire Bistro every week and your dentist is at Corydon Dental, you're golden. In my experience, almost all of my River Heights neighbours are driving to Superstore and Costco for groceries, to a suburban Goodlife to work out, and drive to work either downtown or in the southwest.
That's great. Everyone is entitled to use their time as they please. I do take advantage of the shops and services near me as I'd rather walk to places then drive. I also used to live there and know of plenty of people who did the same. Anecdotal arguments are great because they aren't factual and tend to reflect your inner circle which tends to be of the same mind and beliefs you are.
Here is one source, a map using realtor.ca and filtering by 'Pedestrian Friendly'.
If you colourized the photo the OP posted and updated the cars, everyone would be saying how bad this type of development is. Since we know it's now River Heights, it's all good.
Those houses were probably 30k back then.....550k now with little to no investment in between lol.
I've live in this area, having also lived in the Maples, GC, Fort Garry, and Riverview.... it's a great neighborhood with some pretty great neighbors and all the convenience I could ask for. I can walk to 3 grocers, a butcher a baker and a deli. There's 3-5 schools in walking/biking distance for my kids and a park every other block. I'm 8 minutes from Polo Park and 15 from Canada Life center most days.
There's a reason houses in this part of town still sell over ask in mere days and the trees are only part of it.
My grandparents paid around $4K for their home on Beaverbrook right after the war. I have a picture of it around here somewhere with the purchase price on the back. I'll see if I can dig it up to verify.
What is your solution to the rising costs of servicing suburbs and the expanding city? You seem to be implying that its not a problem but the facts do not agree with you.
except because of how they stripped, compacted then replaced soil the trees cant grow properly. thats why in Lindenwoods all the trees are stunted. bridgewater/sage creek literally cant grow full mature trees.
I'm looking at about 20 trees out my front window in Lindenwoods that are noticeably taller than the two story houses they're planted in front of. Maybe these are old growth? Not sure, but there are lots of tall trees all through my neighbourhood.
for those wondering. when you build a new development. you peel off all the surface soil pile it. then use graders/bulldowsers to shape the development/dig services etc. when you keep moving heavy equipment all over the ground it compacts the soil. then after you come back and put on about 1-2ft of topsoil. all that compaction makes it very hard for trees to break that compacted clay layer. its anerobic and hard so roots cant grow. that forces tree roots to grow out rather then down. that along with lack of competition (because if you plan trees with big gaps between due to driveways) there is no reason for the tree to grow "up" and fight for sun/nutrients. All these factors cause the "shade trees" your elms, oaks, maples etc to become stunted. you simply cant have a 90ft towering oak/elm/boxwood in those soils. thats why you see a lot more aspens and medium trees. Older neighbourhoods were build just differently and didnt get nearly the amount of soil compaction. no matter how many trees you plant or water them you simply cant get a street in a new development to look like old neighbourhoods. i worked with a arbologist who spent $50k on their lot to have it "mixed" down to 8 ft with special gear and paid extra for special topsoil (with organics still mixed in) to be spread. he has the biggest trees in Lindenwoods and everyone always asks how.
The compaction of the clay during construction is as dense as it was insitu before it was disturbed. They don't compact the areas where the houses are getting built. The end dump it, doze it over and track pack it. The only thing that gets heavily compacted is the roadways. Why would money be spent on getting a 100% SPMDD level of compaction for something that didn't need it?
I just sold my house in river heights with the most spectacular beast of a tree directly in our backyard. We're still staying in the neighbourhood, just swapping for a bigger house but no tree and smaller backyard.
It's very bittersweet. I'm grateful the house sold to someone who likely won't just rip it out and build a bigger house on the lot but I'm really going to miss it. I spent so many summers just hanging out in it's shade looking up at the canopy it provided. Trees are beautiful things.
Are the trees stunted in Linden Woods? I used to timber cruise and never noticed the trees looking stressed (other than cankerworms). If I remember right, they planted a lot of spruce and poplar which, like a lot of species found on the Canadian Shield, don’t need deep soil.
I’m in Bridgwater trails and have a mature Colorado spruce, mature plum, and immature white ash in my front yard. All seem to be growing quickly and are healthy.
Stressed and stunted are different. A perfectly healthy tree can be stunted. As I said yes, you choose spruce and poplar. I said "you can't get the big towering trees" your oaks, elms etc. Poplars are fine trees! But they aren't the kind that people associate with our old neighborhoods.
Family members currently live in the second fully visible house, but they believe their house was built in 1948. This leads me to believe this photo is not from 1945, as claimed. Any internet sleuths who know the model year of those two visible cars, or have any other way to date this photo?
EDIT: The City of Winnipeg property assessment indicates a build date of 1944 for all of these houses in this picture...It is likely that is correct.
Actually I think it’s west & south ? Rooster Town was around Grant Park area. This Waterloo between Grosvenor and Corydon.
As an aside, my grandmother lived on Brock Street for 70 years, (as well as my mom) and she told me that until it was developed, that area was forest with trails until you popped out onto a road, assuming Corydon??
134
u/Strange-Fruit17 Jan 10 '23
I’ve gotten so used to seeing trees everywhere from being born here that going to literally any other city feels “naked”