MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

If your preposition holds, no one will want these, and thus they won't sell for $1m and we'll end up with some affordable housing stock.

That's the thing, the developers aren't dumb, they build the maximum intersection of what people want and what makes them money.

I'm not saying they won't get bought; they will absolutely get bought. But it's creating the wrong type of inventory to solve the housing crisis, young families aren't looking to buy seven-figure executive townhomes, and the current state of the market within a 15 minute drive to the core isn't great either, so people move further and further out to get what they want and we continue to sprawl. you&me captured my thoughts on the subject very well.

[woob]

The other problem I see, to Cliff's earlier comments, is if we're trying to get seniors out of their SFH homes and into different housing, townhomes are not the best option for them. My folks moved from a 2 storey SFH to a bungalow, so they didnt have to deal with stairs as much. Townhomes/multi-level condos down solve that.

I've also looked to see what options are out there to get the mother-in-law into a more suitable home (she has way too much house for her needs right now) and same thing; finding her a decent smaller 1 floor option (with basement) that isn't an apartment is a challenge. There are some options, but I don't think they're very common. There's some smaller bungalows in our neighboourhood, but they come up for sale rarely, and having her in our neighbourhood is waaaay too close for my liking.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by woob

The other problem I see, to Cliff's earlier comments, is if we're trying to get seniors out of their SFH homes and into different housing, townhomes are not the best option for them. My folks moved from a 2 storey SFH to a bungalow, so they didnt have to deal with stairs as much. Townhomes/multi-level condos down solve that.

I've also looked to see what options are out there to get the mother-in-law into a more suitable home (she has way too much house for her needs right now) and same thing; finding her a decent smaller 1 floor option (with basement) that isn't an apartment is a challenge. There are some options, but I don't think they're very common. There's some smaller bungalows in our neighboourhood, but they come up for sale rarely, and having her in our neighbourhood is waaaay too close for my liking.

I do wish some of the townhomes / row homes in calgary were not 3/4 stories and skinny, but one on each floor spread out.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by woob

The other problem I see, to Cliff's earlier comments, is if we're trying to get seniors out of their SFH homes and into different housing, townhomes are not the best option for them. My folks moved from a 2 storey SFH to a bungalow, so they didnt have to deal with stairs as much. Townhomes/multi-level condos down solve that.

I've also looked to see what options are out there to get the mother-in-law into a more suitable home (she has way too much house for her needs right now) and same thing; finding her a decent smaller 1 floor option (with basement) that isn't an apartment is a challenge. There are some options, but I don't think they're very common. There's some smaller bungalows in our neighboourhood, but they come up for sale rarely, and having her in our neighbourhood is waaaay too close for my liking.

Also, a lot of that generation want to garden. They want to have the space to touch grass, smell flowers, or grow food. You do not get a lot of yard space with those townhome and you get zero yard space in a condo.

You would need to build a specialized condo building with a rooftop greenhouse (and an elevator to the roof).

The smaller bungalows are great if you can find one but even when they do hit the market you are racing against a corporation to try and buy it and the corporation will often offer more money and zero conditions on the sale because they are going to knock down the house.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

My folks are in a similar (exact?) situation that Cliff describes, although in a slightly different area of town. Just the two of them, in a big house on a large lot. They are using less and less of the house, but if they moved, they would want to be basically in the exact same area for groceries/library, doctor's office, etc. I know those things are available anywhere, but to change areas is tough. Once the stairs become a real issue, there may not be a choice, but ultimately the tall skinny townhomes are no good, and the bungalows are few and far between. The 55+ villa style condos would be the best fit, but also not easy to find.

Notwithstanding the blanket zoning, I fully expect their current house will be torn down and an even larger SFH built in its place.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Oakridge. Palliser. Braeside. Woodlands. A lot of my friends grew up in those communities, and their parents, who are in their 80s, are still living in the same homes. In my parent’s crescent, there are half-dozen couples who bought their homes in the late 70s and still live there. I walk through Oakridge a lot, and I’d guess a third to half of homes are owned by retirees. You can see it just by the grocery stores in the area - they’re busy at 1 pm on a Wednesday, and the majority of shoppers have grey hair.

Considering how much seniors seem to love Glenmore Landing it's really a shame there isn't a way they could live right there

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I'm not saying they won't get bought; they will absolutely get bought. But it's creating the wrong type of inventory to solve the housing crisis, young families aren't looking to buy seven-figure executive townhomes, and the current state of the market within a 15 minute drive to the core isn't great either, so people move further and further out to get what they want and we continue to sprawl. you&me captured my thoughts on the subject very well.

Why is the wrong inventory if it is in high demand (as evidenced by the high prices)?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Considering how much seniors seem to love Glenmore Landing it's really a shame there isn't a way they could live right there

Why is the wrong inventory if it is in high demand (as evidenced by the high prices)?

High priced housing is bad. Affordable housing? Also bad.

SFH are bad, who needs that much space? But townhomes, condos, and all that? Also bad. Not enough space!

The only thing that will please everyone are expansive, single level attached housing complexes (think motels) with some green space but only enough for a garden. Young people love a garden! Alternatively, we might imagine single-room complexes with a communal eating area and recreation area, with shared bathrooms and the like.

We must build these. Though not for us to live in. Leave our homes alone. And not in our neighborhoods, can you imagine the parking?

But somewhere… for someone.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I'm not saying they won't get bought; they will absolutely get bought. But it's creating the wrong type of inventory to solve the housing crisis, young families aren't looking to buy seven-figure executive townhomes, and the current state of the market within a 15 minute drive to the core isn't great either, so people move further and further out to get what they want and we continue to sprawl. you&me captured my thoughts on the subject very well.

Other than newcomers to the city, what are buyers of these homes doing with their current place? Selling it or renting it out, most likely. If they are moving up, they are selling their old place at a lower amount so that lower market people can buy in. And so on, and so on.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Why is the wrong inventory if it is in high demand (as evidenced by the high prices)?

I guess it depends on what you view as the problem statement. I think most people view the problem statement as: Housing is too expensive and the cost of housing is rising faster than wages to such a degree that new generations may never be able to buy a home.

If you keep the supply low then demand will always appear to be high because people will have to buy whatever is available and you will never solve the problem statement because prices will continue to escalate out of reach for average citizens.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I'm in Ward 8 and there looks to be a few candidates worth looking into.

I don't mind many of the Calgary Party Candidates and Thiessen was the former President of the Alberta Party which would fit my ideological makeup.

However, I do loath political parties in Calgary, and as someone in the inner-city, i would like an independent to stick up for the area rather tha agree with those representing the commuters from the burbs.

Suburbanites sometimes forget that people actually live downtown and surrounding area.

Theiseen was in law school with me (not same year though) and I have had some interaction over the years. Seems pretty decent, and his slate is certainly a nice combination of non-career politicians but still community experienced people.

I get not wanting parties, but I tend to think this party was formed as a defence mechanism against RW slates. I'm a little surprised Theissen hasn't gotten more traction - his messaging seems good. Maybe debates will help him.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Being in ward 3 I'm disappointed that Mian isn't running again, she seemed to be one of the few sane reasonable voices in the last council. And looking at the 3 independent candidates Shah, Dhillon, and Yule (I refuse to vote for any municipal candidate with any party affiliation), they all seem to have very similar platforms, so I have no idea who to vote for. Hoping there's some kind of advance polling and I can pick the one with the best chance of beating the party affiliates

[MegaErtz]

It is extremely difficult for the incumbents to defend their arena deal vote. Walcott is my councillor and he told me there was no path to victory for him based on the amount of feedback he received about it.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by MegaErtz

It is extremely difficult for the incumbents to defend their arena deal vote. Walcott is my councillor and he told me there was no path to victory for him based on the amount of feedback he received about it.

Murray Weinsteined Gondek.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Being in ward 3 I'm disappointed that Mian isn't running again, she seemed to be one of the few sane reasonable voices in the last council. And looking at the 3 independent candidates Shah, Dhillon, and Yule (I refuse to vote for any municipal candidate with any party affiliation), they all seem to have very similar platforms, so I have no idea who to vote for. Hoping there's some kind of advance polling and I can pick the one with the best chance of beating the party affiliates

Disappointed too. Mian was really good about helping escalate some 311 issues in our neighborhood. Yule seems pretty active in the community, I haven’t heard of the other guys at all.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wolven

I guess it depends on what you view as the problem statement. I think most people view the problem statement as: Housing is too expensive and the cost of housing is rising faster than wages to such a degree that new generations may never be able to buy a home.

If you keep the supply low then demand will always appear to be high because people will have to buy whatever is available and you will never solve the problem statement because prices will continue to escalate out of reach for average citizens.

Or...maybe people commit over ONE MILLION DOLLARS to buy something they actually do want?

Some people prioritize spending less time in and money on their cars. Prices are high because demand is high, but certain living costs are substantially lower, so one can rationalize bigger mortgage payments into an asset instead of money blowing out the tailpipe. Others prioritize the tranquility of lawnmowers and leaf blowers out in the burbs which also gives them the extra space to store their boat or RV because who wants to spend the weekend in suburbia listening to leaf blowers and lawn mowers...to each their own.

The 'whatever is available' argument worked a lot better when we predominantly built sprawl with some condos/townhouses here and there.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Height has never really been the issue. Depth has been one of the major impacts on neighbouring properties.

Compare that to the two infills beside it. Both have significantly full lots I don’t see the fuss between those two options.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Or...maybe people commit over ONE MILLION DOLLARS to buy something they actually do want?

Some people prioritize spending less time in and money on their cars. Prices are high because demand is high, but certain living costs are substantially lower, so one can rationalize bigger mortgage payments into an asset instead of money blowing out the tailpipe. Others prioritize the tranquility of lawnmowers and leaf blowers out in the burbs which also gives them the extra space to store their boat or RV because who wants to spend the weekend in suburbia listening to leaf blowers and lawn mowers...to each their own.

The 'whatever is available' argument worked a lot better when we predominantly built sprawl with some condos/townhouses here and there.

Ya, like I said, you need to first understand the problem statement. It really does not appear that you do.

1) Demand is high because there isn't enough housing to go around. This is not an opinion, this is a fact that is so prevalent that it was a key issue in the last federal election. This is why the blanket rezoning happened and why there have been so many initiatives to build more housing across the country.

2) Cost of living is getting uncontrollably high. Insurance is high, electricity is high, gas is high, food is high, cars are high... there is no aspect to the cost of living that is "substantially lower". This was also a primary issue in the election and things have only gotten worse with the global tariffs.

3) Salaries are not keeping up with costs. In fact, in a number of places salaries appear to be shrinking instead of growing and unemployment is very high. Look at the multiple unions threatening to strike because of this fact.

Your stance is to ignore the problem and the dismiss the facts because... you are not seeing it in your personal life? Maybe you should go do some reading about the "housing crisis" - yes, search that exact term.

It is the "housing crisis", not the "housing preference".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Also, a lot of that generation want to garden. They want to have the space to touch grass, smell flowers, or grow food. You do not get a lot of yard space with those townhome and you get zero yard space in a condo.

You would need to build a specialized condo building with a rooftop greenhouse (and an elevator to the roof).

The smaller bungalows are great if you can find one but even when they do hit the market you are racing against a corporation to try and buy it and the corporation will often offer more money and zero conditions on the sale because they are going to knock down the house.

I struggle to see this as a problem. The corporation is creating room for 2-4 new homes vs one senior living in a bungalow. The entire idea that neighborhoods should be static is an issue.

People have been priced out of single floor bungalows on large lots. That’s ok. It’s the reality of of the growth required to support their retirement on the taxes levels they paid.

[Faust]

'A Better Calgary' party not running mayoral candidate, will vote to endorse Jeff Davison:

https://calgary.citynews.ca/video/20...-jeff-davison/

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by GGG

I struggle to see this as a problem. The corporation is creating room for 2-4 new homes vs one senior living in a bungalow. The entire idea that neighborhoods should be static is an issue.

People have been priced out of single floor bungalows on large lots. That’s ok. It’s the reality of of the growth required to support their retirement on the taxes levels they paid.

How is that a solution? If the corporation buys a house for $700,000, splits the land in half, and then sells two skinny houses on it for $1.4M each. Is that doing anything to really help the housing market?

The amount of land you buy is half and the cost is double. The corporation is winning on the profit front but I wouldn't say that the people are gaining much.

If the root cause of the housing crisis is that seniors are not moving out of their big houses then ask the question: Why are they not moving out of their houses that are too big for them?
- They want to have room for their kids and grandkids to come visit?
- They are comfortable where they are and do not want change?
- They do not see any interesting housing options that make them want to move out of their big house?
- They are not yet in a position in their life where they need assisted living and they think seniors buildings are only for assisted living?

However, I really do not think that seniors are the root cause of the housing crisis. They may contribute to the problem but I think there are many other issues that are worse:
- Corporations buying up housing as investments (this is why short term rentals are being banned from many jurisdictions)
- Corporations are buying and redeveloping property with ever increasing prices to further their profits
- Foreign investors parking their money in Canadian housing and letting them stand empty
- Lack of serious housing development strategies (I do not view the blanket rezoning as a serious strategy, it is more of a passive wishful thinking)
- Lack of affordable housing inventory

Picking from that list, I think a federal banning of foreign investors from buying Canadian land would be an easy win and would likely free up significantly more homes in a shorter amount of time (especially in places like Vancouver) than blanket rezoning.