What are you sick of doing?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Yeah as much as I support density, there is no doubt apartment condo are bad words in Canada. By any and every metric, owning a SFH is the standard, anything less is almost seen as failure.

We see this so much in Calgary. There is very little desire to live downtown. Anyone with a wife and kids is generally seen as insane or unsuccessful if they live in a condo/apartment near/in the core, as opposed to a detached home in the burbs.

It is not unlike public transit. Being middle aged and using public transit is often seen as being lower status or a sign of lack of wealth. I know a number of people who would never take transit under any circumstances because that's for poor people and single mothers.

Not to mention the fact that condo living is a form of communal living which requires people from different units to work together for the benefit of the whole building. This is very unlike modern Canadians. As we've seen with COVID it is all about individualism nowadays.

Even inner city duplexes or townhouses lack the large yard and full privacy that many people place a high value on when house shopping.

My only hope is that sky high house prices, lack of inventory, focus on density and sustainability etc are key factors to millennials and future generations of home buyers. That way we can slowly see a shift to the death of the suburbs. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Yeah as much as I support density, there is no doubt apartment condo are bad words in Canada. By any and every metric, owning a SFH is the standard, anything less is almost seen as failure.

We see this so much in Calgary. There is very little desire to live downtown. Anyone with a wife and kids is generally seen as insane or unsuccessful if they live in a condo/apartment near/in the core, as opposed to a detached home in the burbs.

It is not unlike public transit. Being middle aged and using public transit is often seen as being lower status or a sign of lack of wealth. I know a number of people who would never take transit under any circumstances because that's for poor people and single mothers.

Not to mention the fact that condo living is a form of communal living which requires people from different units to work together for the benefit of the whole building. This is very unlike modern Canadians. As we've seen with COVID it is all about individualism nowadays.

Even inner city duplexes or townhouses lack the large yard and full privacy that many people place a high value on when house shopping.

My only hope is that sky high house prices, lack of inventory, focus on density and sustainability etc are key factors to millennials and future generations of home buyers. That way we can slowly see a shift to the death of the suburbs. But I'm not holding my breath.

Apartment condos are the worst because of their high condo fees. That'll be the day I pay for common areas, elevators, pools, gyms, etc. Walk-up condos seems like a way better value because they generally have way lower maintenance fees.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

When you look at residential neighbourhoods built in Calgary today vs ones built in the 60s to 80s, we’re already seeing that. New houses are built much closer together and with much smaller yards. Personally I could never live in a newer neighbourhood - I need my privacy and trees. But developers are already densifying, because buyers of new homes today are willing to sacrifice yard size for house square footage.

As for moving away from single-family dwellings more dramatically, the oversupply of condos in Canadian cities show that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

Your Older lot should be taxed like 2 modern burb lots so that you pay for the displacement you cause. Nothing inherently wrong with your choice you should just pay for the implications of your choice.

Developers aren’t densifying. The city requires certain densities as part of the development. The city is preventing the offloading of Long term costs to the future.

[Muta]

I dunno, I love inner city condo or townhouse living. I like being close to everything. I don't see it as being something to judge someone by. There's many amazing and happy families that live in my building too and absolutely make it work, so maybe we can stop speaking in wide-spread generalizations about who lives where and why?

[Cappy]

I have lived in urban, suburban, and rural settings. I cannot see the value/benefit of suburban living. I understand some people move to the suburbs to have afford more space for families (drive until you qualify).

I live urban now and love it. I sometimes think about moving to a rural setting. I would never move to a suburban home.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by peter12

Curious why you think that? It is certainly not the largest - that belongs to discretionary zoning.

Hell yes, of course. It's a resource like anything else, why shouldn't it be taxed? As Roughneck said though, I'm more concerned with the low tax bill before a house is actually built on a parcel of land, thus contributing more to the wastage of single-family homes. Why not encourage the best and most efficient use for a piece of land and encourage more types of development options?

Ya know Pete, I just got a place in Canmore, another condo.

And I think, I may always be a condo person. Whether in the mountains, by the beach. As my NW increases, of course nicer condos.

I'm a bit of a minimalist, although man -- the one thing I yearn for is my very own garage. Condo's that have exclusive garages are rare.

So I suppose, my gripe is "I'm sick of having my car in a shared space" Ha, that sounds overly pretentious. Whatever. Judge me. Lol.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I have lived in urban, suburban, and rural settings. I cannot see the value/benefit of suburban living. I understand some people move to the suburbs to have afford more space for families (drive until you qualify).

I live urban now and love it. I sometimes think about moving to a rural setting. I would never move to a suburban home.

That's similar to how I feel. Cosmopolitan living in a dense urban center is great. Small town, rural life is great. Mid-sized city suburban living is unattractive. It has the worst of both worlds and the best of neither.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Muta

I dunno, I love inner city condo or townhouse living. I like being close to everything. I don't see it as being something to judge someone by. There's many amazing and happy families that live in my building too and absolutely make it work, so maybe we can stop speaking in wide-spread generalizations about who lives where and why?

I don’t get what you’re saying here. You want people to stop generalizing but offer only anecdotal evidence that the suburbs aren’t popular and that inner city living is.

That’s literally what generalizations are for. They don’t mean “everyone without exception”. I don’t know why people so often think that’s what generalization means.

Condos and townhouses are not nearly as popular as SFHs. That’s a fact, not a generalization. The generalization is the “why?” And from my experience in Calgary/Canada is that people tend to, generally, look down on condos and value independent SFHs with a yard. They don’t mind the commute and other downsides to living in the burbs, including the lack of sustainability and the taxation issues that urban sprawl creates.

So yeah, many families live in apartment condos but most don’t and don’t want to.

As mentioned, since it doesn’t appear Canadians want to live in high density multi family units, the only way to encourage increased density is to make living in the burbs cost prohibitive to drive up the necessity of multi family dwellings. In turn this means more people closer to the core, less cars, less infrastructure, better transit etc. It’s a positive feedback loop. Except right now we’re doing the opposite. More roads, less transit, more sprawl which in turn drives more cars, more SFH etc.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

My only hope is that sky high house prices, lack of inventory, focus on density and sustainability etc are key factors to millennials and future generations of home buyers. That way we can slowly see a shift to the death of the suburbs. But I'm not holding my breath.

People will just move to single-family dwellings further away. Even in our densest cities there's a glut of condos, while people in Greater Toronto and Vancouver don't seem to mind driving 60+ minutes to work each way if it means they can have a detached house. And it's not just native Canadians who move to detached homes when they have a family, but immigrants from countries where people typically do live in multi-family structures. A big part of the appeal of this country to immigrants is it's a place where middle-class people can afford a detached home.

And Millennials are moving to the burbs to start families just like their parents did. They're just doing it at a few years later in life.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I don’t get what you’re saying here. You want people to stop generalizing but offer only anecdotal evidence that the suburbs aren’t popular and that inner city living is.

That’s literally what generalizations are for. They don’t mean “everyone without exception”. I don’t know why people so often think that’s what generalization means.

Condos and townhouses are not nearly as popular as SFHs. That’s a fact, not a generalization. The generalization is the “why?” And from my experience in Calgary/Canada is that people tend to, generally, look down on condos and value independent SFHs with a yard. They don’t mind the commute and other downsides to living in the burbs, including the lack of sustainability and the taxation issues that urban sprawl creates.

So yeah, many families live in apartment condos but most don’t and don’t want to.

As mentioned, since it doesn’t appear Canadians want to live in high density multi family units, the only way to encourage increased density is to make living in the burbs cost prohibitive to drive up the necessity of multi family dwellings. In turn this means more people closer to the core, less cars, less infrastructure, better transit etc. It’s a positive feedback loop. Except right now we’re doing the opposite. More roads, less transit, more sprawl which in turn drives more cars, more SFH etc.

Um, this is all just basically your own opinion and anecdotal evidence as well, which is what you're accusing me of. Lots of assumptions in your post that aren't as black and white as you're making it.

Condos are still getting built across Canada, with places like Calgary even looking at downtown commercial towers getting converted into more condos. If there wasn't a demand for them, why are they still getting consistently built? They may offer less space than SFH's, but in general, a condo is cheaper than a house and will likely be for the forseeable future.

Also - "Most don't want to?" ... are you sure about that? Have you asked everyone, everywhere? Six out of eight units on my floor are occupied by families and almost all have been there for years. I also live close to an affordable housing development and many have lived there for years as well; hell, I've seen many of their kids grow up there and it really is a close community they have there. If anything, the interaction they have might even be closer and more connected than any suburban neighborhood. I don't recall ever hearing a single comment from anyone I know in my building or my community referring to 'dying to get out'.

Are you sure everyone hates condos and wants to get out of them? Are you absolutely, positively sure about that?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

People will just move to single-family dwellings further away. Even in our densest cities there's a glut of condos. Because it's not just native Canadians who move to detached homes when they have a family, but immigrants from countries where people typically do live in apartments. A big part of the appeal of this country to immigrants is it's a place where middle-class people can afford a detached home.

And Millennials are moving to the burbs to start families just like their parents did. They're just doing it at a few years later in life.

This. The Millennials are basically tracking to do the same things as the baby boomers. You know why those boomers who were terrible people bought SFH's and SUVs and drove everywhere? Because they could. Once you have kids and everything that comes with that, having a car and house is likely in the cards. When you have to drive the kids to hockey/dance/soccer and all their gear, you want a vehicle for that and transit isn't going to make that easy. When you have those kids and they get up at 6-7am, being close to bars and restaurants isn't as important.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Muta

Are you sure everyone hates condos and wants to get out of them? Are you absolutely, positively sure about that?

Cecil didn't say that. He pointed out the empirical fact that most Canadians prefer to raise families in detached homes.

On average, across the four metropolitan areas, 83 percent of such families preferred detached houses, but only 56 percent were able to afford them. In other words, one-third had to settle for their second choice in housing type.

The largest level of disappointment is in Vancouver, where 78 percent of young urban families prefer detached houses, but were affordable to only 46 percent. Here more than 40 percent were forced to take their second choice. Young urban families fared best in Calgary, where 91 percent favored detached housing, and 74 percent could afford their preference, a gap of 20 percent. In Montréal, 84 percent favored detached housing but only 61 percent were able to afford their preference. In Toronto, the disappointment level was nearly as high as in Vancouver, with 82 percent favoring detached housing and only 50 percent having the budget to afford their first choice (Figure 1).

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...-condos-survey

And yes, there's a glut of condos on the market in Canada's major cities. Developers like making them, but the buyers aren't there in sufficient numbers.

https://financialpost.com/pmn/busine...do-glut-builds

https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/calgary-c...oker-1.5017877

[Regular_John]

It’s funny after 10 months of being at home in Canyon Meadows we’re eying a move back to the inner city. When we were working downtown 5 days a week it was easy enough to enjoy the amenities of downtown/inner city as part of our routine, but without that schedule our neighbourhood is feeling isolated as hell.

[Ryan Coke]

People should happily live where they want, I just don’t understand the desire to enforce a certain lifestyle on those who have different priorities. And maybe my impression is mistaken, but it seems like more inner city people think people should move from the burbs to the inner city, than the other way around. I don’t see people who live outside the core wishing for the death of the inner city.

Pay a fair market price, and live the lifestyle you want, without judgement.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

People should happily live where they want, I just don’t understand the desire to enforce a certain lifestyle on those who have different priorities. And maybe my impression is mistaken, but it seems like more inner city people think people should move from the burbs to the inner city, than the other way around. I don’t see people who live outside the core wishing for the death of the inner city.

Pay a fair market price, and live the lifestyle you want, without judgement.

It's the desire to implement a tax structure, to more fairly collect revenue from those homes that cost the most to the tax base. Right now it is not, and there's where much of this judgement arises from.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Cecil didn't say that. He pointed out the empirical fact that most Canadians prefer to raise families in detached homes.

Fair enough. Me, I barely know any people, living in the inner city - family, couples, singles, whatever - that are dying to get out. There's so many benefits of living in the inner city. Proximity, public transit, services, work, community. It's not for everybody, I get that, but it's not the forced suburban vacuum he's portraying it as if you actually ask people who live here.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

Your Older lot should be taxed like 2 modern burb lots so that you pay for the displacement you cause. Nothing inherently wrong with your choice you should just pay for the implications of your choice.

Isn't that already factored into the property valuation? A 60 year old 1,200 sq ft bungalow in Glamorgan or Braeside costs as much as a new 1,800 sq ft house in Bridlewod or Royal Oak. Or do you think lot size should be the only factor in residential tax rates?

There's also the political reality on the ground that's it's tough sell to dramatically increase the property taxes of a couple in their 70s who have lived in a modest house in Fairview for 40 years. They didn't have any say in the city sprawling out and making their modest home's displacement unfair.

[topfiverecords]

There needs to be a community tax algorithm multiplier to the assessment value.

One factor would be population density per square kilometre. Normalizing assessment values for discussion, if you live in a low density area, your community as a whole is paying less tax to service the same sq km of an equal area higher density community. Your community still needs schools, firehalls, parks, green spaces, community centres etc.

Another would be distance from center point of the city. The further you are from the majority, the more road and utility length to build and maintain. The further out garbage/recycling/compost trucks/street cleaning/snow plows have to travel out to service you. Time and fuel is money.

Another would be distance to adjacent communities. All of that open space around your community is disconnecting you and removing efficiencies in serving multiple close communities.

Transit is also a huge issue and the cost to service low populations in far locations is massive. Fare zones might be the fairest way to handle that. Make those travelling farther pay more. Problem is then that people who use transit to commute from the edge to inner city or further will go back to car travel once the cost benefit flips. So add another value to the algorithm.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

There needs to be a community tax algorithm multiplier to the assessment value.

One factor would be population density per square kilometre. Normalizing assessment values for discussion, if you live in a low density area, your community as a whole is paying less tax to service the same sq km of an equal area higher density community. Your community still needs schools, firehalls, parks, green spaces, community centres etc.

Another would be distance from center point of the city. The further you are from the majority, the more road and utility length to build and maintain. The further out garbage/recycling/compost trucks/street cleaning/snow plows have to travel out to service you. Time and fuel is money.

Another would be distance to adjacent communities. All of that open space around your community is disconnecting you and removing efficiencies in serving multiple close communities.

Transit is also a huge issue and the cost to service low populations in far locations is massive. Fare zones might be the fairest way to handle that. Make those travelling farther pay more. Problem is then that people who use transit to commute from the edge to inner city or further will go back to car travel once the cost benefit flips. So add another value to the algorithm.

This, 100%.

[Slava]

How about all the residential properties pay the same amount? I just did two searches on Google and it appears that the entire billing for property taxes is $695m. The other search says there are ~490k residences in the city. So, bill everybody $2000 a year and call it a day?