Real estate in Calgary - another bubble?

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1522897158982283265

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1522897158982283265

This is bad journalism.

This article is done to service the real estate boom and try to create demand from both in and out of province buyers. It consists of two anecdotes from random realtors and barely touches the discussion of migration and whether in and out flows are supported by job increases and other metrics or if it’s just cash coming in for investments.

Lazy writing in service of advertisers.

[blankall]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ncil-1.6417822

Edmonton is revamping their zoning laws to make it much easier to build higher density in all residential neighborhoods.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by blankall

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ncil-1.6417822

Edmonton is revamping their zoning laws to make it much easier to build higher density in all residential neighborhoods.

But... parking!

And too many garbage bins look messy. Imagine what this will do to the children!

Lest we forget the "existing character of the neighbourhood".

[jwslam]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

But... parking!

And too many garbage bins look messy. Imagine what this will do to the children!

Lest we forget the "existing character of the neighbourhood".

Well it MAY work for some people if they revise their oldass laws of bull#### parking spots per dwelling...
https://webdocs.edmonton.ca/infrapla...Quantities.htm

How many people do you know that do NOT have a vehicle living in a burb?
Only every other studio unit has one car? How do studio couples get around?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by jwslam

How many people do you know that do NOT have a vehicle living in a burb?
Only every other studio unit has one car? How do studio couples get around?

I choose to own a car, so I bought a place I could park one. If no one wants places with limited/no parking, people won't buy them and they'll stop building them.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by jwslam

Well it MAY work for some people if they revise their oldass laws of bull#### parking spots per dwelling...
https://webdocs.edmonton.ca/infrapla...Quantities.htm

How many people do you know that do NOT have a vehicle living in a burb?
Only every other studio unit has one car? How do studio couples get around?

A studio dwelling is a dwelling so small it does not have separate bedroom walls (typically under 500 square feet). Quite frankly, if you are a couple living in a 500 square foot place or less in a far out suburb in Edmonton, you probably can't afford a car, or, at the very least, you are making some crazy economic/life choices.

Most studios would be located very centrally to downtown, so you likely be okay with transit. I can't imagine anyone, who could still afford a car, wanting to live in a studio in the burbs.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I choose to own a car, so I bought a place I could park one. If no one wants places with limited/no parking, people won't buy them and they'll stop building them.

Rather, they’ll continue to live there because of economics, parking their needed vehicle on the street. So developers get to pass along the expense and space requirements onto the City and general public spaces. No parking space requirement is a win for an extremely small group of people, least of which is actually the residence of a community.

[jwslam]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Rather, they’ll continue to live there because of economics, parking their needed vehicle on the street. So developers get to pass along the expense and space requirements onto the City and general public spaces. No parking space requirement is a win for an extremely small group of people, least of which is actually the residence of a community.

This
"Buy a 3 Bedroom condo with only 1 parking stall? No problem, we'll park one in the stall, just monopolize the visitor parking, and then park the other on the street"
-says one owner, neglecting that all the other units are in the same situation.

Then their street parked car becomes
a) obstructive because they are parking it illegally, instead of
b) having to park 3 blocks away in some zone that only allows parking 9pm-7am so they need to get up to move everyday

Condo board 8 months later finally tightens the visitor parking situation. So now they have two street parked cars in situations a&b

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I choose to own a car, so I bought a place I could park one. If no one wants places with limited/no parking, people won't buy them and they'll stop building them.

It's already proven in Marda Loop that there is limited appeal for these 'zero parking' micro-unit buildings in Calgary outside of the downtown core / beltline. The "Marlo" stacked townhouses with 11 parkingless 400 sq ft micro-units below grade has failed to sell, leaving behind a commercial failure and undeveloped parcels.

It always amuses me to no end that many of the loudest voices in the "up not out" movement chose single detached/attached housing for themselves. Just as long as they themselves don't have to live in apartment style condo units I suppose.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

It's already proven in Marda Loop that there is limited appeal for these 'zero parking' micro-unit buildings in Calgary outside of the downtown core / beltline. The "Marlo" stacked townhouses with 11 parkingless 400 sq ft micro-units below grade has failed to sell, leaving behind a commercial failure and undeveloped parcels.

It always amuses me to no end that many of the loudest voices in the "up not out" movement chose single detached/attached housing for themselves. Just as long as they themselves don't have to live in apartment style condo units I suppose.

I think zero parking units could work well in our city, but you'd have to build them within walking distance of a bus loop/train station IMO. Something like the university city build would probably work great as well.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

It always amuses me to no end that many of the loudest voices in the "up not out" movement chose single detached/attached housing for themselves. Just as long as they themselves don't have to live in apartment style condo units I suppose.

Are you sure? It's easy to say that but "up not out" shouldn't fall exclusively into 500 square foot rectangles. If that's all they keep building for densification, don't be surprised when people are looking for a little more breathing room. 1200-1800 sq ft townhouses/condos/etc that can be lived in by more than 1 person would be appreciated.

[timun]

This is what "the missing middle" is all about... https://missingmiddlehousing.com/

[blankall]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

It's already proven in Marda Loop that there is limited appeal for these 'zero parking' micro-unit buildings in Calgary outside of the downtown core / beltline. The "Marlo" stacked townhouses with 11 parkingless 400 sq ft micro-units below grade has failed to sell, leaving behind a commercial failure and undeveloped parcels.

It always amuses me to no end that many of the loudest voices in the "up not out" movement chose single detached/attached housing for themselves. Just as long as they themselves don't have to live in apartment style condo units I suppose.

It's more about having different options for different living styles. When I was single, a 500 square foot place was fine. With a partner, a 700-900 square place was great. With a kid a 12-1400 square foot townhouse would be ideal. The only way I would ever see myself needed a house, with 2500+ square feet, would be if I had 3+ children, and I don't see that happening.

I really don't see anyone pushing for more 500 square foot condos. I see people pushing for middle density that decreases commute times.

The reality is most Canadian now have 2 or fewer children (the average woman in Canada has 1.47 children), yet the only options are small condos or fully detached areas in most places, Montreal excluded as they have done that right. I know the "missing middle" has become a cliche, but it's by far the best option for many modern Canadian families. Canadians aren't, typically, having 3 or more kids anymore.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I think zero parking units could work well in our city, but you'd have to build them within walking distance of a bus loop/train station IMO. Something like the university city build would probably work great as well.

Agreed on this. Calgary's parking policies speak to this in the context of TOD and other 'zero parking' alternatives with respect to LRT/BRT (primary transit).

Originally Posted by Mazrim

Are you sure? It's easy to say that but "up not out" shouldn't fall exclusively into 500 square foot rectangles. If that's all they keep building for densification, don't be surprised when people are looking for a little more breathing room. 1200-1800 sq ft townhouses/condos/etc that can be lived in by more than 1 person would be appreciated.

1,800 is pretty ambitious for even a townhouse, let alone a condo but in principle I agree with what your saying. I don't think the issue of discussion here is the form of housing here, but about what developers are trying to get away from a bylaw standpoint in terms of shoe horning these onto parcels ill suited for them from a neighborhood impact perspective.

Originally Posted by blankall

It's more about having different options for different living styles. When I was single, a 500 square foot place was fine. With a partner, a 700-900 square place was great. With a kid a 12-1400 square foot townhouse would be ideal. The only way I would ever see myself needed a house, with 2500+ square feet, would be if I had 3+ children, and I don't see that happening.

I really don't see anyone pushing for more 500 square foot condos. I see people pushing for middle density that decreases commute times.

I've lived the missing middle lifestyle and completely appreciate it. However, so long as detached options exist - 7/10 people will revert to basic 'most for your money' economics.

And it's not just about space for kids. The long term sustainability of the "missing middle" is a matter largely ignored by housing developers and the real estate industry. Most of these missing middle units are less than 12 units which in Alberta means that the owners can complete their "own" reserve fund study without involving independent professionals. While some buildings do this properly, those same basic human economics kick in and typically underfund the long term capital needs of the building. I've seen some places have a "Board" in name only. Total governance dumpster fires.

That and you just get curmudgeonly when you get older and don't want to be told what to do (or not do) by some Board.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

That and you just get curmudgeonly when you get older and don't want to be told what to do (or not do) by some Board.

This is why I will never go back to condo life

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

And it's not just about space for kids. The long term sustainability of the "missing middle" is a matter largely ignored by housing developers and the real estate industry. Most of these missing middle units are less than 12 units which in Alberta means that the owners can complete their "own" reserve fund study without involving independent professionals. While some buildings do this properly, those same basic human economics kick in and typically underfund the long term capital needs of the building. I've seen some places have a "Board" in name only. Total governance dumpster fires.

That and you just get curmudgeonly when you get older and don't want to be told what to do (or not do) by some Board.

The condo governance structure has enough fixed costs baked in (management, insurance, insurance for management, etc) that it isn't ideal for small buildings. I've been on the board of a few corps with 10 or less units and you just can't have professional management, a fully funded reserve, and reasonable fees. Pick 2 of 3 at most.

Maybe that missing middle type housing would be better organized as rental buildings, although that comes with its own set of issues.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by I-Hate-Hulse

I've lived the missing middle lifestyle and completely appreciate it. However, so long as detached options exist - 7/10 people will revert to basic 'most for your money' economics.

3/10 is still a lot of people. And those 3/10 are likely to want to concentrate around city centres, as, previously stated, the point of higher density is to gain benefits elsewhere, most notably commuting time.

With more and more people choosing not to have any children, the 3/10 number is only going to increase.

On top of that there's a massive labour, money, and time burden associated with a detached home. The kind of people who are choosing not to have children are largely not going to want to spend their weekends maintaining their lawn.

[Jordan!]

Does Canada have Zillow.com? OR something similar?

[jwslam]

Originally Posted by blankall

On top of that there's a massive labour, money, and time burden associated with a detached home. The kind of people who are choosing not to have children are largely not going to want to spend their weekends maintaining their lawn.

Nor are they willing to pay $500/month in fees for someone else to manage their savings for repairs, and regular outdoor maintenance.

So we have these: