Calgary Real Estate predictions?

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by darklord700

I've heard tree huggers say wood is not environmentally friendly because it takes eon to grow trees. Concrete or cement is just limestones and they are not environmentally friendly now, how so? You can't win with them.

Wood framed building that tall you will have moisture, foundation shifting or post tension cable to deal with. I can almost guarantee that the savings won't be that big for consumers but it'll be quicker for the builders to construct and that translates into more profits for them. It'll be the consumers holding the bag at the end as usual.

bingo... plus how much are you really saving in terms of a %20 cost in materials. When you're talking about an infill in sunnyside where the land costs 500k, the labor is 200k, and material about 100k. The difference in material cost is almost negligible in the overall picture for an 800k home. In the end its all about developers putting more money in THEIR pockets.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

who's willing to bet those cost savings won't be passed on to the end consumer. It will be the developers that profit. The main costs associated with real-estate in Calgary is land price and labor, NOT materials. If I was in the market to build my own house it would be out of concrete not wood.

Yeah, concrete is real cheap these days and not a major input cost.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by darklord700

City has approved taller wood framed building to be constructed. At the advantage of only 20% cost savings at the most, I'm not sure cheapning the already insufficient building codes is worth it.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...652/story.html

A 20% savings on a 6 story condo building is massive!

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Yeah, concrete is real cheap these days and not a major input cost.

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

A 20% savings on a 6 story condo building is massive!

up to %20 in material cost.

It's often reported that building a concrete home can increase costs over wood construction from 5% to 15%. But some builders report that they are able to build more affordably than with wood. Here is how some are doing it.

http://www.concreteconstruction.net/...rete-home.aspx

%80 of the cost of a new home in Calgary is land and labor NOT materials. So if you're just increasing your material cost by %15 it's really not that much for a superior product. We're talking what, $800k vs $830k? big deal. I'll pay the extra concrete. It's not %20 of total price, that would be ridiculous. Just more propaganda by developers to sell you a cheaper product at almost no cost savings to you. They win, you lose.

[Regular_John]

Yeah the cynic in me says that 20% never trickles down to the consumer level. Makes it a little cheaper for developers/builders to squeeze 20% more units onto the same plot of land and walk away with another dozen or so sales for each project.

Higher density housing sure, but don't paint this as an "affordable housing" solution.

[Travis Munroe]

Factor in your 20% savings on building/labor and then consider added expenses to the owners over 20 years.
Its great for the developers as they can sell a bit cheaper, make more money and wipe their hands clean. Picture a washing machine flood on the 6th floor of a wood framed building.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

bingo... plus how much are you really saving in terms of a %20 cost in materials. When you're talking about an infill in sunnyside where the land costs 500k, the labor is 200k, and material about 100k. The difference in material cost is almost negligible in the overall picture for an 800k home. In the end its all about developers putting more money in THEIR pockets.

Hmm, I'm no math doctor, but in that case I'd ballpark it at about $20k.

But, and this is a big "but" this has nothing to do with an 800k infill in sunnyside. This is a new development for multi unit buildings up to 6 storeys. You've always been able to build that infill out of wood, this doesn't change that at all.

When you start looking at material costs for the kinds of buildings this as actually relevent to. I'm pretty sure the material costs are pretty significant.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

up to %20 in material cost.

It's often reported that building a concrete home can increase costs over wood construction from 5% to 15%. But some builders report that they are able to build more affordably than with wood. Here is how some are doing it.

http://www.concreteconstruction.net/...rete-home.aspx

%80 of the cost of a new home in Calgary is land and labor NOT materials. So if you're just increasing your material cost by %15 it's really not that much for a superior product. We're talking what, $800k vs $830k? big deal. I'll pay the extra concrete. It's not %20 of total price, that would be ridiculous. Just more propaganda by developers to sell you a cheaper product at almost no cost savings to you. They win, you lose.

The change from cement to wood also allows you to move away from other products too. For example you are starting to see a lot more condos built with fiber cement panels instead of stucco or EIFS. The installation on that is so much faster and the warranty it provides is a life saver.

Allow that to go up to 6 stories and you soon won't see any buildings using stucco anymore.

[lorenavedon]

the construction industry doesn't benefit by selling you home that's going to last a thousand years. In good times they build homes, in bad times they reno and fix things. So now they build, when build time is over, you'll be hiring the same people back to put fix up the very same places they built. It's like buying a car. Sure the 5 year new home warranty is great. And right after it expires, that's when all of a sudden everything starts falling apart.

[Dentoman]

Having lived in a wood frame 3 story building when I first got out of school .... I swore that if I ever live in a multifloor building again, it would be concrete. Too much noise in the wood building for me. Granted, probably wasn't a well built building in the first place (Edgecliffe Estates), but I am not going to risk it.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

the construction industry doesn't benefit by selling you home that's going to last a thousand years. In good times they build homes, in bad times they reno and fix things. So now they build, when build time is over, you'll be hiring the same people back to put fix up the very same places they built. It's like buying a car. Sure the 5 year new home warranty is great. And right after it expires, that's when all of a sudden everything starts falling apart.

Stucco provides no warranty once the final walk-through has been done and approved. The paint is going to fade. The stucco is going to crack etc. It's a horrible product.

Fiber cement provides a 50 year warranty (and is factory painted). The aluminum trim with fiber cement provides a 15 year warranty (again factory painted).

[darklord700]

These mid rise will likely be built just outside of downtown, e.g. Mission, where the land is still pretty valuable. So these definately do not qualify as affordable housing by any stretch of imagination. It's just a ploy for the developers to squeeze out 2 more floors or close to 50% more units to sell with basically the same wood framed design.

I can see the reduction in construction costs might be important to low rise in Silverado. But to these still premium condos, it's like using linoleum to save on flooring costs in a million dollar home.

The ongoing maintenance costs will likely be higher for wood framed than concrete. So do the owners really save anything in the end? I don't think so.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

up to %20 in material cost.

It's often reported that building a concrete home can increase costs over wood construction from 5% to 15%. But some builders report that they are able to build more affordably than with wood. Here is how some are doing it.

http://www.concreteconstruction.net/...rete-home.aspx

%80 of the cost of a new home in Calgary is land and labor NOT materials. So if you're just increasing your material cost by %15 it's really not that much for a superior product. We're talking what, $800k vs $830k? big deal. I'll pay the extra concrete. It's not %20 of total price, that would be ridiculous. Just more propaganda by developers to sell you a cheaper product at almost no cost savings to you. They win, you lose.

You're slapping your strong opinions on the SFH market in Calgary and disdain for the industry and comparing it to something unrelated.

No one mentioned SFH's. It's for buildings up to 6 storeys. Why do some developers stop at 4 stories when they can go higher? Costs. So now they can go to 6 and maybe sell a bit more cheaply. Will they, I dunno, but the resident realtor makes an obvious point below.

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

Factor in your 20% savings on building/labor and then consider added expenses to the owners over 20 years.
Its great for the developers as they can sell a bit cheaper, make more money and wipe their hands clean. Picture a washing machine flood on the 6th floor of a wood framed building.

Here ya go, any good realtor is going to compare buildings side by side and if there's a concrete building next door and a similar sized unit the good realtor is going to recommend the concrete on a dollar for dollar comparison. The market will dictate what the price is, not the developer. Additionally any astute buyer with the intentions of renting out is going to go for the concrete building when all other things are equal. So the sale price will work itself out.

[Travis Munroe]

^^ A very small portion of new build buyers actually use a realtor. There will be a lineup once one of these goes up for pre build sale as it will be slightly cheaper and offer a better PP SQ FT. The sales team will do a great job making the buyer feel like the sound barrier has improved so much over the years. Has it? yes. To the point that you wont hear your neighbor slam his door or the person above you vacuuming? no.
At the end of the day, a concrete building is going to be more enjoyable to live in....even to the expense of paying slightly more & its quality will out last a wood frame building. The investment side of things also makes more sense. Ever been in a 20/30 year old wood frame building? It can feel like it is ready to crumble. Concrete buildings still feel solid 50 years later. *this is a general statement.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

No one mentioned SFH's. It's for buildings up to 6 storeys. Why do some developers stop at 4 stories when they can go higher? Costs. So now they can go to 6 and maybe sell a bit more cheaply. Will they, I dunno, but the resident realtor makes an obvious point below.

Actually, a major reason buildings in Calgary stop at 4 storeys is zoning. The vast, vast majority of low rise buildings are in areas where the zoning has a maximum height that only allows for 4 storey buildings.

[darklord700]

Inexpensive wood framed low rise has it's place in the market. Many years ago that was the only thing I could afford and I bought one. Lived in it for a few good years and the increased in equity in that condo allowed me to buy a SFH. So it had served me well.

But these days I'm afraid what Travis said is true. Many builders pass on wood framed as the same as concrete which is just not true. It's fine if buyers do the research and decide on buying one. Just don't expect miracles like absolute sound proofing as you'll hear the existence of your neighbour to a certain extend.

[lorenavedon]

when some of these wood frame lowrises were built 30-40 years ago, you didn't have a society of jersey shore base-brahs thumping their new sound sytems at 2am shaking an entire block. Wood frame might have been ok then, but now a days people just love to be loud and annoying so concrete is a must.

[burn_this_city]

Didn't we learn the wood condo lesson around 2000 when that entire complex burnt down by Erlton station?

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Didn't we learn the wood condo lesson around 2000 when that entire complex burnt down by Erlton station?

Wood framed buildings are going up all the time. The article even mentions a place in Mission zoned ok for 5 stories but only built 4 because it wanted the wood frame.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Didn't we learn the wood condo lesson around 2000 when that entire complex burnt down by Erlton station?

Like this?

fire safety advances such as active sprinklers during the construction stage have given planning officials confidence there’s no problem with the reform