Real estate in Calgary - another bubble?

[burn_this_city]

Access to Seton is from Deerfoot, SE RR is irrelevant other than making traffic worse on Deerfoot. All the communities that border the ring road existed before it was made into an 6 lane highway.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by blankall

I disagree pretty strongly with your report. Firstly, the number of people having children and the size of families in Canada is rapidly declining. As someone who did not have children until a few months ago, I can say that I had zero desire for a detached home until I had children. The same was true of just about everyone I knew without children.

As for Calgary specifically, there is massive demand for the new townhouses in the Altadore area. Mostly from small families. Quite frankly, I think a lot of people would prefer a townhouse with a foot top patio over a detached garage. I can't comment on how this will affect Calgary's craft wood working industry.

If you're telling me there is simply no demand for a townhouse that's walking distance from a bunch of bars, restaurants, and other forms of entertainment and also a very short commute from downtown, I'm telling you that I don't believe you.

From my experience buying such a property last spring, there is definitely is demand. When we were shopping I’d typically send 4-6 listing to my realtor for viewings, and get word back in a few hours that a 1/3rd had already been conditionally sold.

We managed to get our place before it hit the market as we saw the coming soon sign while viewing a neighbouring unit.

I think folks married to the idea of car dependant/SFH neighbourhoods are vastly underestimating the effect of the “missing middle” housing. There could be so much more offered between condos in the sky & front drive suburban homes, but developers still prefer to go for a large volume of greenfield development.

I’m reading Sustainability Matters right now which is focused squarely on Calgary’s urban development and has some rather disheartening stats/historical tidbits however. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but the Plan It initiative had a target of splitting new comers to the city equally between inner city & new suburban developments over a 10 year period… in reality it ended up being 90% suburban if my memory is correct.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by #-3

Actually if your concern is commute time, it's the East edge, Calgary is largely a rectangular shape and the east/west is just a much shorter commute in terms of distance

Distance by road to City Center.
East Hills ~15KM
Crestmont ~18KM
Evanston ~28KM
Legacy ~33KM

None of the areas really have roads that are all that much faster during rush hour.

just splitting hairs at this point I guess (agree with your rectangle general observation) but some of the western edge communities just off bow trail (as opposed to Crestmont) are as close I would think as the Eastern edge. not sure where we are defining as city center, but I live right on the edge of the city and 12.5 km from "Calgary tower"

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Access to Seton is from Deerfoot, SE RR is irrelevant other than making traffic worse on Deerfoot. All the communities that border the ring road existed before it was made into an 6 lane highway.

I can absolutely promise you this - Seton would not be as it is today if the ring road wasn't there.

[you&me]

There's a very simple metric that acts as a perfect proxy for what people "want" in their homes - property value.

The desirability of single family, townhouse, 3-bed condo, inner city, suburb, etc, etc, is all perfectly measured by value. Convenience, access to amenities, size, commute times, etc are all part of the calculus, but at the end of the day, a home is worth what it's worth because of demand and house value is a perfect way to measure desirability.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by you&me

There's a very simple metric that acts as a perfect proxy for what people "want" in their homes - property value.

The desirability of single family, townhouse, 3-bed condo, inner city, suburb, etc, etc, is all perfectly measured by value. Convenience, access to amenities, size, commute times, etc are all part of the calculus, but at the end of the day, a home is worth what it's worth because of demand and house value is a perfect way to measure desirability.

That value is also derived off of supply - you can't build more inner city homes but you sure can plop another suburb down, sub divide (townhomes and infills) or build upwards (condos). Value isn't exactly an indication of what the greater population wants. It just may be that the demand for SFH inner city are far more supply constrained than the tens of thousands of suburban homes we have here in Calgary.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Leondros

That value is also derived off of supply - you can't build more inner city homes but you sure can plop another suburb down or build upwards.

To a point. At some point, you can only lengthen commuting distances to a point before you start harming the labour market.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by peter12

To a point. At some point, you can only lengthen commuting distances to a point before you start harming the labour market.

As someone who is involved in the industry as a hobby, there is plenty of room for some more communities. Its just the appetite of the City and general direction we as a city want to go.

This isn't Vancouver, we have built the proper transportation infrastructure (roads) to get around town. I spend a lot of time in Vancouver and my god driving is the most infuriating thing. Especially if you want to go to the local mountains or have to cross one of the bridges. God damn!

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by boogerz

You've undershot the population target for East Village by a substantial amount. The planned build-out of East Village is supposed to support 13-14k permanent residents, not just 10-11k.

Most of the estimates I've seen are not that high. Slokker says 10-11K here:

https://slokker.com/usa/verve-east-v...lgary-alberta/

Other estimates are 11.5K in several years.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ress-1.4888504

Of course the costs are going to look eye popping, but infrastructure isn't cheap and that's the point of high-density development...it's significantly easier to get a ton of bang for our buck with $400M of infrastructure spending (and more) across such a small area.

High density causes infrastructure to be much more expensive. And as for bang for the buck, I'm reminded of the City's attempts to close down the Inglewood and Beltline recreation centres because of lack of usage and high subsidies/user compared to the more suburban centres.

Originally Posted by blankall

Do people actually think the library and the East Village was a bad investment. When I went back to Calgary last I walked from the library to my brother's home in Ramsay. It was a night and day difference from what it used to be. This was the area outside my boxing gym in the early 2000s, which was a place that if I parked my car 2 blocks away I felt was genuinely dangerous. Mostly decaying warehouses, railyards, and industrial buildings.

It's not that they are bad investments, but to show that the inner city does get substantial investment. And if $400M is peanuts, then the anti-sprawl folks should shut up about the cost of the so-called 14 new neighborhoods, which likely won't even cost that much City of Calgary tax support in total while housing many more new residents and businesses.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

I’m reading Sustainability Matters right now which is focused squarely on Calgary’s urban development and has some rather disheartening stats/historical tidbits however. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but the Plan It initiative had a target of splitting new comers to the city equally between inner city & new suburban developments over a 10 year period… in reality it ended up being 90% suburban if my memory is correct.

Just because politicians say they want 50:50 doesn't mean that's what new residents and new home owners want. You can't force them to live where they don't want to live. Push too hard and you end up with 50:50 only because 150K potential new Calgarians ended up moving to the surrounding towns and cities, or not moving to Alberta at all.

In recent years, the media has talked about Calgary's loss of young people but the most important migration cohorts for Calgary are the late 20s to mid 30s:



Unlike the three bigger cities, Calgary still attracts the family-starting age demographics because it has the housing that they want. In those other cities, they're leaving the core for the suburbs, exurbs or Alberta.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Leondros

This isn't Vancouver, we have built the proper transportation infrastructure (roads) to get around town. I spend a lot of time in Vancouver and my god driving is the most infuriating thing. Especially if you want to go to the local mountains or have to cross one of the bridges. God damn!

Swap New York/Boston for Calgary/Vancouver and this is pretty accurate IMO

Spoiler!

[Table 5]

Where you live is always going to be a mix of what you prioritize and what you can afford (usually with emphasis on the latter). Expecting to give people everything they want, close to where they want, at a price they can afford, is not always realistic in a free market economy....but a good city provides a mix of options, which I think Calgary actually does fairly well. Atleast here you have some options... not always true in many other places.

I also think there is no perfect place for anyone, and it's ok to change your location as you move through life. When you're young, the things you value are different then when you're older or have children, so its natural that your housing situation changes too. I know what I valued as super-ultra important in my 20s is not even on my radar now that I'm 40 and with 2 kids.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Did you bother to read the comment I was responding to?

Yes. You're still strawmanning this as house vs condo. There are things like attached infills with yards, row houses with yards and all sorts of in between options.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

Firstly, the number of people having children and the size of families in Canada is rapidly declining.

Declining, but still the overwhelming majority. 90 per cent of Boomers had kids. 85 per cent of Gen X. And now 80 per cent of Millennials.

Originally Posted by blankall

As someone who did not have children until a few months ago, I can say that I had zero desire for a detached home until I had children. The same was true of just about everyone I knew without children.

But that’s exactly my point: Urban living is not proving the preference of Millennials; it’s proving a transitional stage for educated young workers before they start families. Which 80 per cent of them will do.

Originally Posted by blankall

As for Calgary specifically, there is massive demand for the new townhouses in the Altadore area. Mostly from small families. Quite frankly, I think a lot of people would prefer a townhouse with a foot top patio over a detached garage. I can't comment on how this will affect Calgary's craft wood working industry.

Sure, Altadore is great. I used to live there before it was gentrified. I’m not against that sort of mixed development at all. I’m just questioning its relative popularity vs the reviled suburbs. And really, how many more Altadores can we create in Calgary? It’s a pretty rare combination of proximity to the city centre, a huge urban park, and lots of schools.

City flight is happening all over North America. Without the need to live close to work, a great many people are choosing to sell their urban property for something more spacious in the burbs or a satellite community.

https://www.economist.com/united-sta...-live/21806771

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by jaydorn

Every generation? Hardly, it more or less started with the “silent generation” that returned from WWII and gave birth to the boomers.

But back to the topic at hand, obviously a house in the burbs with a giant yard is quite appealing during a lockdown, but assuming WFH remains after the pandemic abates, I think we’ll see different preferences start to influence the market.

For me personally my home is now my workplace, which made me pickier about what’s in my immediate vicinity… millennials love their lattes and having them in walking distance may be more important than a garage full of toys.

They aren't buying houses though

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Which inner city communities don't allow MDU at the moment?
* Elbow Park
* Mount Royal
* Elboya
* Brittania
* Bel Aire
* Mayfair
* St Andrews


No Sliver, your half hour drive from Lake Bonaventure to anything urban, isn't under this consideration.

I'm not sure, I live and work in Vancouver.
I'm sure those areas allow some form of multi family developments on certain streets or lots but the type of development I'm recommending is more broad re zoning that takes that beyond the main corridors and corners.

Here is the Vancouver Cambie corridor plan as an example:

Spoiler!

The lots along the main roads like Cambie or Oak Street were mostly rezoned for fairly high density condos, while the inner 4 to 5 blocks off the main streets were re zoned for townhouse developments.
You now have 3-4 single family houses being turned into 20-30 townhouse on many of these sites, thus increasing the density of the "missing middle" type properties that are large enough to have a small family but also in a prime location and walking distance to the skytrain.

Calgary may already be looking at stuff like this (I don't know). My recommendation was only that they should, and should before land values get incredibly high in those areas like they did in Vancouver.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'm not sure, I live and work in Vancouver.
I'm sure those areas allow some form of multi family developments on certain streets or lots but the type of development I'm recommending is more broad re zoning that takes that beyond the main corridors and corners.

Here is the Vancouver Cambie corridor plan as an example:

Spoiler!

The lots along the main roads like Cambie or Oak Street were mostly rezoned for fairly high density condos, while the inner 4 to 5 blocks off the main streets were re zoned for townhouse developments.
You now have 3-4 single family houses being turned into 20-30 townhouse on many of these sites, thus increasing the density of the "missing middle" type properties that are large enough to have a small family but also in a prime location and walking distance to the skytrain.

Calgary may already be looking at stuff like this (I don't know). My recommendation was only that they should, and should before land values get incredibly high in those areas like they did in Vancouver.

Vancouver is pretty unique. My wife's grandpa owned about half a city block in the E49 and Main/Fraser area. Back then it was quite comparable to Calgary home prices. Post Olympics is really when Vancouver became insane. The City got blind sided not only from a infrastructure shortfall stand point but also the immense amount of immigration.

20 years ago lane way houses, and basement suites were not as common as they are today. My wife's mom sold one of their homes 5 years ago and that was knocked down. It was a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom house. It is now listed as 11 bedrooms and 8 bathrooms - no joke. They built a house, 2 full basement suites, and a laneway house. This is common for every single house going up in the community. Parking is an absolute gong show.

My MIL was telling us that the City is currently tabling the idea to allow for 6 units on each parcel of land... That will be an absolute joke...

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Just because politicians say they want 50:50 doesn't mean that's what new residents and new home owners want. You can't force them to live where they don't want to live. Push too hard and you end up with 50:50 only because 150K potential new Calgarians ended up moving to the surrounding towns and cities, or not moving to Alberta at all.

This is a very fair point, but my counter would be that the city certainly has a say in what they are willing to sell to prospective residents. Be it the farmland around the city, or retrofits into the existing infrastructure.

At the end of the day I’m pretty firm in my belief that unmitigated sprawl is bad for society as a whole, as cities should be built for human scale with many transportation options as oppose to vehicle scale and cars as the default option.

Obviously my personal position on the matter isn’t even a drop in the bucket when considering the market forces at play. But when I hear we’d need the resources of 6-7 planets to sustain the average Calgarian’s lifestyle if scaled to the entire population of earth… well I think it’s worth considering some aggressive pumping of the brakes when it comes to our city’s consumption of irreplaceable farm land.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Declining, but still the overwhelming majority. 90 per cent of Boomers had kids. 85 per cent of Gen X. And now 80 per cent of Millennials.



But that’s exactly my point: Urban living is not proving the preference of Millennials; it’s proving a transitional stage for educated young workers before they start families. Which 80 per cent of them will do.



Sure, Altadore is great. I used to live there before it was gentrified. But that’s a weird example - half of Altadore is already infills and walkups. I’d wager there are 2x as many people living there today as there were in the 90s. And that’s not even considering Garrison Woods.

I’m not against that sort of mixed development at all. I’m just questioning its relative popularity vs the reviled suburbs.

City flight is happening all over North America. Without the need to live close to work, a great many people are choosing to sell their urban property for something more spacious in the burbs or a satellite community.

https://www.economist.com/united-sta...-live/21806771

I don't think anyone is stating that no one wants a detached house. The importance of a detached home is clearly dropping. If 15% more of the population is not having children, that's pretty substantial. Another factor we should look it is how many families are having just one child? Just two? 3 or more? Once again, with 1 child, a townhouse becomes a lot more attractive, then if you have 3 or more children. Medium density housing can also be built around schools/daycare.

Also, I totally agree with people stating that Calgary is more likely to attract people for the purpose of having children because you can buy an affordable detached home. I know multiple people who moved out of Vancouver to Calgary, because homes were affordable.

It's not an all or nothing thing. You can build a bunch of townhouses near the core and still continue to build larger detached places in the suburbs. Calgary is a very quickly growing city, so they most likely need all types of development. My point is that Calgary should not make the same mistakes other cities in Canada have made and neglect to build medium density housing.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I'm not sure, I live and work in Vancouver.
I'm sure those areas allow some form of multi family developments on certain streets or lots but the type of development I'm recommending is more broad re zoning that takes that beyond the main corridors and corners.

Here is the Vancouver Cambie corridor plan as an example:

Spoiler!

The lots along the main roads like Cambie or Oak Street were mostly rezoned for fairly high density condos, while the inner 4 to 5 blocks off the main streets were re zoned for townhouse developments.
You now have 3-4 single family houses being turned into 20-30 townhouse on many of these sites, thus increasing the density of the "missing middle" type properties that are large enough to have a small family but also in a prime location and walking distance to the skytrain.

Calgary may already be looking at stuff like this (I don't know). My recommendation was only that they should, and should before land values get incredibly high in those areas like they did in Vancouver.

Yes, middle density from rowhouses, to townhouses to low and midrise apartments along collectors and main streets is a big thrust of Calgary's growth strategy. The lowest hanging fruit being the massive turnover of inner city corner lots to 4 unit rowhouses (some with basement suites). Tons of that happening. It really is a nice more affordable product than the traditional semi-detached.

We also have a few very large scale master planned communities like University District, or Currie (more expensive) that offer a lot of middle density type stuff.