Global reveals developer’s plan to control CGY city council

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

People like myself don't want to limit peoples' choices for the housing types that they want by some fiat of city council. What we want to do is get the pricing right so that you pay of the full cost of the type of housing you want, that you have a legitimate choice of housing options of all types, and that the built form of the city starts to resemble one of interconnectedness and sustainability.

100% with Tinordi on this. Why can't people see this? No one is saying you have to live in a freaking condo. New build detached housing options will/should always be available, but you're going to have to pay a bit more for all the things you're going to want.

I would love to see the City/School Boards publish a map that clearly states for each new suburb being built (and for ones built in the last 5 years):

- when you will get a school (showing 5-10 years)
- what bus / LRT service will be available (showing reduced service for 3-5 years, 20 yrs for LRT)
- new interchange / major roadworks needed (hopefully showing 10-15 years out)
- police / fire coverage (showing less than established parts of the city)

A map like this will hopefully hammer home the message: It's a new suburb - You're going to have to wait.

A co-worker bought in New Brighton. Loves the neighborhood (except for the SWAT raids on grow ops). But didn't really realize how bad traffic is down there before she bought. A well known (dare I say notorious) map like this should hopefully better manage peoples expectations of what to expect from the City.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

100% with Tinordi on this. Why can't people see this? No one is saying you have to live in a freaking condo. New build detached housing options will/should always be available, but you're going to have to pay a bit more for all the things you're going to want.

But that's not why the city is saying. In fact they are not really saying much about what the future looks like for individuals and their choices.

What they are saying (I think) is that not all projects will be approved regardless of costs. Costs are not really the debate at all.

New development will slowly metered against some pretty subjective criteria and definitely take a back seat to redevelopment.

So what does it really mean? Either the city doesn't know or won't say. That I have seen at least.

[Traditional_Ale]

Why are so many people so emotionally attached to a cookie-cutter cardboard drone-hole anyway? Such good little cogs in the wheel of consumerism, clamoring with fervor to achieve the predictable milestones of an unremarkable life. I think the suburbs south of Sundance are heinously ugly. Embarrassing, actually.

[Bunk]

The Herald editorial just shows a lack of any sort of real knowledge of the planning and development system. The City does not "force" the development of multi-family. The City does set a minimum density threshold for new communities as a whole, and it also has density threshold for areas specifically surrounding transit (called Activity Centres, or Corridors) but it's up to the developers how that density is distributed.

Even with the minimum density thresholds, these days developers are almost always above them, not just meeting them. This means that it's the market that's driving density - not usually the City. Within the minimum densities, there is more than enough flexibility to have many, many single family houses with backyards.

Most land developers (and smarter homebuilders) are adapting their models to include more semis, townhouses, and different forms of multi-family. Mattamy for instance introduced four completely new housing forms in their next development, which the City accommodated (the Outline Plan application was passed in record time, even with four new types and a brand new street cross section design). The reason they are doing it is because the market is demanding it.

Where the City is really pushing is a different layout of communities such that transit is more efficient (modified grids) and sequencing of growth areas. Things like density and housing form are more and more being led by developers/homebuilders looking to match the changing market. Some homebuilders are slower than others to adapt.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Why are so many people so emotionally attached to a cookie-cutter cardboard drone-hole anyway? Such good little cogs in the wheel of consumerism, clamoring with fervor to achieve the predictable milestones of an unremarkable life. I think the suburbs south of Sundance are heinously ugly. Embarrassing, actually.

But what makes that lifestyle any better than the latte sipping box in the sky achieving the same milestones of an unremarkable life.

Too much value is placed on this choice.

Really we just need part of the tax based on the square footage of lot you occupy. Pay for what your impact is wether it be SUVs or housing choice.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by GGG

But what makes that lifestyle any better than the latte sipping box in the sky achieving the same milestones of an unremarkable life.

What I was getting at is the idea that the middle-class lifestyle we were brought up to believe in is a fallacy. It doesn't exist. The single family home with a garage and a yard is not a "middle-class" thing any more. Upper middle-class maybe. It would seem to me that rather than accept this and move on/adapt, people are shaking their fists and stamping their feet crying "no fair!" while building what to me look like ugly soviet bloc neighborhoods. Completely unsustainable ugly soviet bloc neighborhoods.

Imagine the amount of disposable income the new "middle class" family would have if they didn't desire to have a single family unit to live in?

Too much value is placed on this choice.

Really we just need part of the tax based on the square footage of lot you occupy. Pay for what your impact is wether it be SUVs or housing choice.

Agreed.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Imagine the amount of disposable income the new "middle class" family would have if they didn't desire to have a single family unit to live in?

How much would they save? Take a "new middle class" family. Two kids, maybe a dog. Probably want 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms. How much would a condo or a townhouse with all that, within 20 minutes of downtown, cost in Calgary?

It wouldn't be any cheaper than a house in the suburbs, if you could even find one. In other words, they wouldn't save any money.

I'm sure there are lots of people out there with kids who would be happy with a set-up like that, but it's too expensive. There are probably lots of bad reasons that it is too expensive, but the bottom line is that it is.

EDIT: You know what? I looked. There are a few of them in the 300 grand range. Shows what I know. But there are very few of them. The best deals look to be had in Bowness.

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How much would they save? Take a "new middle class" family. Two kids, maybe a dog. Probably want 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms. How much would a condo or a townhouse with all that, within 20 minutes of downtown, cost in Calgary?

It wouldn't be any cheaper than a house in the suburbs, if you could even find one. In other words, they wouldn't save any money.

I'm sure there are lots of people out there with kids who would be happy with a set-up like that, but it's too expensive. There are probably lots of bad reasons that it is too expensive, but the bottom line is that it is.

EDIT: You know what? I looked. There are a few of them in the 300 grand range. Shows what I know. But there are very few of them. The best deals look to be had in Bowness.

The reason there is so little available has nothing to do with cost. It's the fact that we as a society have still not let go of the idea that the middle class we were sold on is a crock, and non-existent in (a sustainable) reality.

[CaptainYooh]

If only market is allowed to determine the way, then the cheapest, fastest and easiest solutions will be found which is not always good or healthy. At the same time, if only governments are allowed to do that, housing will become unaffordable and stifled. There has to be a collaboration.

I see one of the roots of the problem in poor planning. Take Elbow Valley and Pennbrooke, for example. How were they allowed to proceed with all of the housing types essentially similar to each other?! Here is one 100% sure way to divide and polarize the society. I think, each new community must be required to provide housing forms for every income level from the get go to achieve blending and avoid stigmatization. Not just through overall density target imposed arbitrarily, but specifically - small apartments, large apartments, semi-detached, townhomes, single-family of at least five size bands. Prescribing? Yes, maybe. But then, the market will follow the prescription and find innovative solutions. Just one thought.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

How much would they save? Take a "new middle class" family. Two kids, maybe a dog. Probably want 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms. How much would a condo or a townhouse with all that, within 20 minutes of downtown, cost in Calgary?

It wouldn't be any cheaper than a house in the suburbs, if you could even find one. In other words, they wouldn't save any money.

I'm sure there are lots of people out there with kids who would be happy with a set-up like that, but it's too expensive. There are probably lots of bad reasons that it is too expensive, but the bottom line is that it is.

EDIT: You know what? I looked. There are a few of them in the 300 grand range. Shows what I know. But there are very few of them. The best deals look to be had in Bowness.

Gotta consider overall affordability. Living in a more urban location may allow many families to live easily with only one family car, vs two. It's said that the overall cost of car ownership per month is equivilant to about $200,000 on a mortgage. This is exactly the situation we have right now in my family - smaller 3bdrm, but urban location, so we only need 1 car.


Here's an interesting study on greater Vancouver on this topic:
http://www.metro604.com/2013/04/26/a...affordability/

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

What I was getting at is the idea that the middle-class lifestyle we were brought up to believe in is a fallacy. It doesn't exist. The single family home with a garage and a yard is not a "middle-class" thing any more. Upper middle-class maybe. It would seem to me that rather than accept this and move on/adapt, people are shaking their fists and stamping their feet crying "no fair!" while building what to me look like ugly soviet bloc neighborhoods. Completely unsustainable ugly soviet bloc neighborhoods.

Imagine the amount of disposable income the new "middle class" family would have if they didn't desire to have a single family unit to live in?



Agreed.

I'm genuinely curious to know what communities you think look like Soviet bloc neighbourhoods.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Gotta consider overall affordability. Living in a more urban location may allow many families to live easily with only one family car, vs two. It's said that the overall cost of car ownership per month is equivilant to about $200,000 on a mortgage. This is exactly the situation we have right now in my family - smaller 3bdrm, but urban location, so we only need 1 car.


Here's an interesting study on greater Vancouver on this topic:
http://www.metro604.com/2013/04/26/a...affordability/

I live and work in the burbs and we only have one car. You just need a bicycle instead of walking. 80% of Calgary days are bikable. Limiting car ownership is more of a lifestyle choice than a location choice.

[Smartcar]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Calgary Herald editorial board lays an egg:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...264/story.html
Amazing

Not to mention inaccurate.

First of all, the not-for-profit Manning Centre does not have charitable status, and therefore, donations to it do not receive tax receipts. So everyone can calm down about that.

Well not the tax receipts that individual taxpayers get for provincial and federal political donations. But these are businesses, and they get to write off the donations as an expense. So not much different.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

For inner city development what % of infastructure costs do developers pay? Increasing density still has the associated capital costs with water treatment, roads,etc. it is less than adding a new house in the suburbs but still exists.

So in terms of costs what do inner city developers pay?

Keep in mind that development levies is only one of part of how infrastructure is paid for. Another part, of course, is taxes.

=================================

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Keep in mind there is are different viewpoints on this than the mayors.

http://www.votecalgary.ca/vote-calga...ts-the-answer/

This article is ridiculous.

The "what development levies pay for" is actually "what devlopment levies partly pay for", and what the city (taxpayers) pay for is actually the stuff they mentioned plus the remaning part of "what development levies pay for".

This is not a different viewpoint, merely spin. It is technically accurate that "development levies" pay for what they say they do, in the sense that they pay the city and the city provides them. But they absolutely do not pay for all that stuff in the sense that they'd pay the city enough for the city to deliver those things wihout losing money.

If I go into a store and buy a TV at less than cost, well, yes, I've paid for it. But the cost is split between me and the store. And that's what we need to be talking about when we talk about who pays for what. Applying the definition that votecalgary chose to apply makes any statement about who has paid for what irrelevant.

[Tinordi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/bu...les.html?_r=1&

Schiller makes the point I did earlier. Good article

In his 2009 book, “The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity,” Richard Florida argues that the modern economy requires a different layout: “The coming decades will likely see more intense clustering of jobs, innovation and productivity in a smaller number of bigger cities and city-regions,” he writes. That outcome would certainly affect prices of existing homes. It seems a plausible direction for housing development, but it’s certainly not guaranteed.

AT the moment, walkable urban areas — pleasant places where people can stroll to work and to restaurants — are becoming more popular. Last year, a Brookings Institution study of the Washington area by Christopher B. Leinberger and Mariela Alfonzo concluded that such neighborhoods, where creative people cluster, show the highest property values. Far-flung suburbs are losing value relative to cities and close-in suburbs that offer such walkable areas. And these denser places seem to fit in better with more environmentally conscious values, too.

Attitudes toward renting have also been changing. A MacArthur Foundation survey, conducted by Hart Research Associates in February and March, asked Americans if they thought that, “given our nation’s current situation,” buying a home had become more or less appealing. Fifty-seven percent said it had become less so, with only 27 percent saying it had become

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The Herald editorial just shows a lack of any sort of real knowledge of the planning and development system.

Maybe this is one of those clever political ways of deflecting the question, but it would be really unfortunate if the mayors stance were that the rest of the world just isn't smart enough to understand the nuances of the process.

The process is for the developers and buraucrats to worry about. What the process creates is what the rest of us care about. Clearly the mayor wants the world to be different. what he ought to take from the herald article is that his message so far is muddy, and people have concerns about what different means to them.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Maybe this is one of those clever political ways of deflecting the question, but it would be really unfortunate if the mayors stance were that the rest of the world just isn't smart enough to understand the nuances of the process.

I think it was more along the lines of: "Before you go preaching about the need for the City to be understanding, you yourself must make sure you understand what is being discussed. Otherwise, you are just contributing to the misinformation".

[chemgear]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...373/story.html

But there’s a new planning system council will discuss Monday that really has the suburb-makers’ anxiety high, especially in a civic election year.

Called the Growth Management strategy, it’s a plan to constrict the number of startup suburban communities, so the city can focus limited dollars for new storm sewers, water pipes, roads and other infrastructure.

“Which pieces of land should go first?” said senior planning official Chris Jacyk, who will outline the complex new regime to council Monday.

[smoothpops]

http://globalnews.ca/news/606269/pre...loper-meeting/

Preston Manning "responds" to the controversy. He seems pretty confident that everything they accepted from developers is above board, but we'll see...

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by smoothpops

http://globalnews.ca/news/606269/pre...loper-meeting/

Preston Manning "responds" to the controversy. He seems pretty confident that everything they accepted from developers is above board, but we'll see...

I know this is a loaded question, but can anyone objectively explain Manning's role in all this?

“There appears to be a partnership—either tacit or not—between the Manning Centre, the homebuilders and a number of different political candidates,” says Mount Royal political scientist Duane Bratt

My understanding is (aka could be full of incorrect information):

1. He was born in Edmonton, started the reform party and became leader of the opposition
2. He retired from politics and created the Manning Centre for Building Democracy (conservative think-tank/ conservative politician training location)
3. He seems to have taken an large interest in Calgary municipal politics and for some reason.
4. Hes seems to be the figure head for our Calgary housing developers. Why a conservative think-tank is spear heading the cause of municipal housing developers is beyond me, political right and pushing for permits to build new communities are unrelated. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue, in any sense.

From my perspective, the only reason he would be representing our housing developers is because he has been bought off by them. Same goes for any provincial party representatives who utter a word in this conflict, stay out, unless they had skin in the game as this does not fall into provincial political party lines.

When I see a person on this forum, who is/related to a very active participate of a provincial political party, slamming our mayor for his position on this topic, I just assume corruption is occurring deep within that party. If your tied closely to any provincial party, in anyway, I don't know why you would speak up to this.

That is my uneducated point of view on this issue, could someone by chance clear the facts up? Does manning have nothing to do with this debate? Am I the typical uneducated public that needs to be set straight? I feel clueless on this, and I don't like that feeling.

EDIT: I just found this, and it explains a lot of my questions:

http://manningcentre.ca/municipal