Global reveals developer’s plan to control CGY city council

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I don't think that's lost on them. I'm pretty sure that in their opinion most middle class people should be able to afford their own single family detached home and that's viewed as the ideal. In the urban scenario you describe the natural laws of supply and demand would dictate that over time the dectached home would exceed the affordability of the majority of people.

It might just be that as far as the future of what happens inside the city of Calgary limits is concerned that reality is ultimately unavoidable. Just don't think that the reaction to that will be full capitulation and a movement en masse into townhomes and low-to-medium rise buildings. 'Parasite' communities are going to grow.

I can agree with this. However, I'm of the personal opinion think the concept of a 'detached' home gets more attention than it should in this day and age. There is nothing wrong having your home attached to someone else's in the name of sustainability, efficiency and densification.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yeah a bunch of false dichotomies being thrown around, add that to a nihilistic race to the bottom argument and you can understand why people get so exasperated.

@Cowboy89

You have to be in it for the long game, city infrastructure and the urban form take up to a century to remake. While the city faces immediate pressures from unfettered development outside of the urban boundary the long term bet is that smart growth and densification will ultimately make more attractive and liveable communities which is going long on the future value of living in Calgary versus the suburban bedroom community.

It just isn't defensible to know that sprawl and SFH development is ultimately financially and environmentally unsustainable but then do nothing about it because your competitors are doing nothing about it. That argument is consistently rebuked time and again that leaders actually enjoy the benefits of leadership and laggards are the ones that pay the costs in the end.

I think you're mistaking my viewpoint that Calgary should go the path that Shane homes suggested. On the contrary, Calgary should build exactly the type of city it wants and let the rest play out. I actually think Nenshi's route is a better way for the City of Calgary to pursue. It's more efficient and less costly long term. Those who choose to move away will ultimately pay the costs of doing so. I'm just pointing out that it's naive to think that there won't be sizable amounts of people doing just that though.

[Tinordi]

Canadians are already starkly moving away from single detached homes. In 1997 the marginal share of single detached homes in Alberta was 80%, in 2007 it was 65%. Similarly for apartments their marginal share was 10% of new homes, it's now 25%.

So the market is clearly making movement toward densification or attached homes. This isn't social engineering.

Ultimately though cities are the progeny of policy and decision making we shouldn't act like that hasn't always been the case. Now we have a more sophisticated lens to understand the consequences of the decisions we make.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I don't think that's lost on them. I'm pretty sure that in their opinion most middle class people should be able to afford their own single family detached home and that's viewed as the ideal.

Although this is somewhat (ok - more than somewhat) off-topic, I really wonder what people think about "detached" homes now that are almost always on lots barely bigger than the houses. For example, I went last weekend to look at the Foothills Hospital Home Lottery grand prize home, and I was amazed that a house that was worth over $2 million was set on a lot where the neighbouring house was no more than a few metres away, and where the yard was not much bigger than my balcony.

Is this what people want? I work for a developer myself, and that type of lot/house combo is more the norm than otherwise in almost all new neighborhoods I visit in the course of my employ. It's more an illusion of separation than the reality; you're living in a townhouse with a bit of air as walls between the units.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I too can't understand the "Nenshi is in campaign mode" line that gets trotted out. Unless "campaign mode" is "totally committed and passionate about the city during every waking hour of his day".

What should really scare Cal and his ilk is without any strong mayoral challenger all of us Nenshi folks will have a lot of time on our hands this election to do what we did for him in each ward.

It sounds more like "Nenshi in campaign" mode means he is doing his job and constantly putting out dialogue on issues he is passionate about and everybody else who is "not in campaign mode" are lazy politicians doing nothing all year until election season where they scramble to pretend they did their homework.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Take a look at how quickly boomburbs can grow in other metropolitan areas in North America (especially the GTA!). As Calgary gets more restrictive on land supply/uses for greenfield development within the city limits the greater the price discrepancy for single family homes exists between places like Okotoks, Airdrie, Cochrane, Strathmore and Calgary, the faster those areas will grow and it can happen fairly rapidly.

But you're starting with the wrong assumption here. Calgary does not restrict land supply - didn't we go through all this with the Charron Ungar issue?

The reason why outlying communities grow quickly is simple urban land economics. The further out you go, the less expensive land is. It's therefore more affordable. Calgary's housing market took a massive spike in 2006-07, which priced some people out of the Calgary market. Nevertheless, Calgary maintains a pretty healthy share of the regional housing market (~80%).

[Ozy_Flame]

Question - what is the typical re-sale value of a cookie-cutter, suburban home (like the kind Shane homes builds) . . . Are people generally selling these for a profit? Lets use a place like Mckenzie Towne or Auburn Bay for example.

[SebC]

I gotta say Nenshi's being a bit disingenious when he says he doesn't know what Wenzel's mad about. Of course he does.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I don't think that's lost on them. I'm pretty sure that in their opinion most middle class people should be able to afford their own single family detached home and that's viewed as the ideal.

It's true, a lot of people do want single family homes. But, it also depends on what stage of life you're in. Single family home is not ideal for many different types of people. If you're a student, if you're a senior, if you're an empty nester, if you're a childless couple, if you're a single individual, etc. Married couples with kids is not the only demographic that exists or matters in a city. The Mayor pushes ideas like a mix of housing types within communities such that people can age and stay within their community if they like.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by SebC

I gotta say Nenshi's being a bit disingenious when he says he doesn't know what Wenzel's mad about. Of course he does.

Doesn't that all circle back to the "development freeze" rhetoric that got Nenshi's nose out of joint?

Developers say there is a freeze, City says there is not.

Is this is just the same argument going on, and on, and on...?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Doesn't that all circle back to the "development freeze" rhetoric that got Nenshi's nose out of joint?

Developers say there is a freeze, City says there is not.

Is this is just the same argument going on, and on, and on...?

No, it's way bigger than that. Shane Homes doesn't build apartment buildings. Improving the city centre improves a product that competes with the suburban lifestyle that Shane Homes offers. Likewise, high density development competes with their brand of low density. In that sense, even something like the Peace Bridge devalues suburban homes, because it drives up the appeal of developments like Pixel in Kensington that to some extent compete with what the homebuilders are offering in the suburbs.

Then there's the issue of development levies. Council has increased them, and Nenshi would like to increase them further. The homebuilders say the cost would be passed to consumers, but that's not entirely true. Part of the cost would be borne by consumers, but producers will absorb part of the hit.

There's no doubt that the policies that Nenshi has and would like to implement will hurt Shane Homes' bottom line (albeit by taking away free money that they've been getting from the city), at least in the short term.

In the long term, there's an effect where Shane Homes may see their product become more valuable again by virtue of the city being better, but I'm not sure it would ever outweight the short term hit that they (and others like them) would take.

[Bigtime]

I'm curious, where do developers that have "urban" divisions stand on all of this?

I would have to think the fact that they are adapting and adding a division to cater to the growing infill/multi-family market shows that they are adapting to the times, while the purely greenfield SFH builders are trying to hang onto the glory days tooth and nail.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by First Lady

This is happening already.

Smaller municipalities outpace Calgary in home sales growth

The problem I have with documents like PlanIt or ImagineCalgary, is there is little or no reference to what's happening in the market. It's like they believe they can force these changes. Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose change. I just think much of it would happen naturally. I see it in my own community of Highland Park.

I think the biggest issue is that the current planning system does not easily allow for change. Although the market might be able to support new types of neighbourhoods, it is often difficult for interested developers to get planning permission as the planning system was originally designed to prevent such developments.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by jammies

Although this is somewhat (ok - more than somewhat) off-topic, I really wonder what people think about "detached" homes now that are almost always on lots barely bigger than the houses. For example, I went last weekend to look at the Foothills Hospital Home Lottery grand prize home, and I was amazed that a house that was worth over $2 million was set on a lot where the neighbouring house was no more than a few metres away, and where the yard was not much bigger than my balcony.

Is this what people want? I work for a developer myself, and that type of lot/house combo is more the norm than otherwise in almost all new neighborhoods I visit in the course of my employ. It's more an illusion of separation than the reality; you're living in a townhouse with a bit of air as walls between the units.

Exactly the homes in newer areas that have to meet density guidelines are becoming virtual townhomes. This is why one of the areas we looked at was Langdon; where the lots are 60' X 180' and there is a minimum of 16' between houses.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm curious, where do developers that have "urban" divisions stand on all of this?

I would have to think the fact that they are adapting and adding a division to cater to the growing infill/multi-family market shows that they are adapting to the times, while the purely greenfield SFH builders are trying to hang onto the glory days tooth and nail.

Or perhaps they all do have those divisions, but the market demand for those types of development is miniscule compared to the existing SFH segment?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm curious, where do developers that have "urban" divisions stand on all of this?

I would have to think the fact that they are adapting and adding a division to cater to the growing infill/multi-family market shows that they are adapting to the times, while the purely greenfield SFH builders are trying to hang onto the glory days tooth and nail.

Heck, even a strictly surburban developer who provides a different type of product could benefit from the changes that are happening in Calgary. The type of suburbs we are building is changing, and those that can build the sort of houses that fit Keystone or Seton stand to gain from that.

There's a push to allow different types of homes into our city, and the guys who have experience in those types of homes would benefit from that. Of course, people who have experience with stuff Calgary doesn't have are "outsiders" so to speak. So the Calgary homebuilders have an incentive to try to keep things the same to maintain their advantages.

I also don't know where they stand, but I too would have to think that some developers would actually be onboard with these changes. All the way from the more innovative greenfield developers to the downtown condo-builders. A lot of the the people who would want new opportunities opened up (and who can help us evolve as a city) would not be Calgary-based though.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Or perhaps they all do have those divisions, but the market demand for those types of development is miniscule compared to the existing SFH segment?

Shane Homes does not appear to have a urban division.

Even if these urban divisions are "miniscule" in scale compared to the parent companies SFH greenfield operations it at least shows that they are branching out into that market and adapting for the changing landscape in Calgary.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Exactly the homes in newer areas that have to meet density guidelines are becoming virtual townhomes. This is why one of the areas we looked at was Langdon; where the lots are 60' X 180' and there is a minimum of 16' between houses.

That's funny. I always had you pegged as more of the gritty, inner city neighbourhood type.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Exactly the homes in newer areas that have to meet density guidelines are becoming virtual townhomes. This is why one of the areas we looked at was Langdon; where the lots are 60' X 180' and there is a minimum of 16' between houses.

Uh funny you mention this since I'm currently on my way back from working in Langdon. Where are these minimums you speak of? new House I just did looked like your typical Cranston house. Definitely not 60 x 180.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Exactly the homes in newer areas that have to meet density guidelines are becoming virtual townhomes. This is why one of the areas we looked at was Langdon; where the lots are 60' X 180' and there is a minimum of 16' between houses.

Be careful about Langdon. Our neighbors looked there and ruled it out because of flooding and basement issues. I can see if I can find out exact details, if you'd like.