I'm fuzzy on the details but I believe it has to do with some long-ago caveat put on the land above and beyond RC-1 zoning. I'm not even 100% sure that this blanket re-zoning excludes Mt. Royal - someone with more specific knowledge could better answer this question.
Do you honestly think those homeless people are going to be buying those $500.000. rowhousess?. The only guy who is going to come out of all of this with a smile on his face is the developer.
One thing I don't see being built is cheap starter homes. The one we had in Ogden had vinyl flooring, straight counters with no island or L shapes, basic cupboards and a formica counter top. Interior doors went floor to ceiling to save on framing and drywall costs. These days everything seems to be focused on "luxury". You have to start out somewhere...
I'm fuzzy on the details but I believe it has to do with some long-ago caveat put on the land above and beyond RC-1 zoning. I'm not even 100% sure that this blanket re-zoning excludes Mt. Royal - someone with more specific knowledge could better answer this question.
I'm not sure of the specifics of Mt Royal, but lots of areas have restrictive covenants registered. As mentioned previously, these covenants supercede zoning by laws and will endure any changes to them... removal of a covenant is possible, but is also a long and expensive process, so typically people will avoid the hassle in favour of lower hanging fruit... Which will be most of the rest of the city under the proposed zoning changes.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to you&me For This Useful Post:
One thing I don't see being built is cheap starter homes. The one we had in Ogden had vinyl flooring, straight counters with no island or L shapes, basic cupboards and a formica counter top. Interior doors went floor to ceiling to save on framing and drywall costs. These days everything seems to be focused on "luxury". You have to start out somewhere...
Because of land costs, those are only really available in greenfield communities. The same ones that many up-zoning advocates do not support.
It would probably also help if Calgary built more single family homes, now down to only 27% of new starts and 34% of completed units in 2023.
Not a surprise that with so little new inventory, resale prices of detached SFHs are now in the $700K range.
The Following User Says Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
One thing I don't see being built is cheap starter homes. The one we had in Ogden had vinyl flooring, straight counters with no island or L shapes, basic cupboards and a formica counter top. Interior doors went floor to ceiling to save on framing and drywall costs. These days everything seems to be focused on "luxury". You have to start out somewhere...
One thing I don't see being built is cheap starter homes. The one we had in Ogden had vinyl flooring, straight counters with no island or L shapes, basic cupboards and a formica counter top. Interior doors went floor to ceiling to save on framing and drywall costs. These days everything seems to be focused on "luxury". You have to start out somewhere...
The problem with the desire for "cheap starter homes" is that you need someone to build them. If a developer's land cost is X and they can charge another $50-100,000 per unit by installing $15k worth of "granite and hardwood", they're going to do it.
When the majority of build costs are the same (land, foundation, framing, etc all costs roughly the same whether you're building a $250k row houses, or $500k units). The gravy for builders comes from putting lipstick on that pig, and as long as the market buys it up, there is less than zero incentive for a builder to leave out these features to reduce prices and make things more affordable.
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously that thinks this change will have a meaningful impact on affordability. This might be the city's greatest ever gift to developers and it's insane that more people don't see it for that.
Last edited by you&me; 04-22-2024 at 01:46 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to you&me For This Useful Post:
I'm not sure of the specifics of Mt Royal, but lots of areas have restrictive covenants registered. As mentioned previously, these covenants supercede zoning by laws and will endure any changes to them... removal of a covenant is possible, but is also a long and expensive process, so typically people will avoid the hassle in favour of lower hanging fruit... Which will be most of the rest of the city under the proposed zoning changes.
Yes "covenant" was the word I was looking for, not "caveat".
I'm fuzzy on the details but I believe it has to do with some long-ago caveat put on the land above and beyond RC-1 zoning. I'm not even 100% sure that this blanket re-zoning excludes Mt. Royal - someone with more specific knowledge could better answer this question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by you&me
I'm not sure of the specifics of Mt Royal, but lots of areas have restrictive covenants registered. As mentioned previously, these covenants supercede zoning by laws and will endure any changes to them... removal of a covenant is possible, but is also a long and expensive process, so typically people will avoid the hassle in favour of lower hanging fruit... Which will be most of the rest of the city under the proposed zoning changes.
The rezoning map put out by the city for this blanket zoning indicates that all of Upper Mount Royal and Elbow Park will be moving from R-C1 to R-CG. They don't seem to be exempt.
Do you honestly think those homeless people are going to be buying those $500.000. rowhousess?. The only guy who is going to come out of all of this with a smile on his face is the developer.
If you feel so strongly about your position on rezoning, are you going to go down and give your 5 minute talk to the City Council?
No but I imagine it kind of works like this:
Single-family homeowner sells their house - reasons are many like moving upmarket or downmarket, moving away, death, etc.
Developer purchases the property and builds two or more dwellings at market price. Some of these buyers are immigrating from outside of the province but many are moving upmarket and selling their house at a lower price point.
Their old property now becomes available to someone who can buy or rent at a lower price point. In the case where it is purchased by someone who wishes to dwell in it but a developer buys it and creates more than 1 dwelling out of it and the above process repeats itself.
By increasing supply at higher price points up to the point of what the market demands, the supply at lower prices increases.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to D as in David For This Useful Post:
The rezoning map put out by the city for this blanket zoning indicates that all of Upper Mount Royal and Elbow Park will be moving from R-C1 to R-CG. They don't seem to be exempt.
Zoning won't be taking covenants into account. Covenants supersede so it won't matter.
The Following User Says Thank You to topfiverecords For This Useful Post:
Single-family homeowner sells their house - reasons are many like moving upmarket or downmarket, moving away, death, etc.
Developer purchases the property and builds two or more dwellings at market price. Some of these buyers are immigrating from outside of the province but many are moving upmarket and selling their house at a lower price point.
Their old property now becomes available to someone who can buy or rent at a lower price point. In the case where it is purchased by someone who wishes to dwell in it but a developer buys it and creates more than 1 dwelling out of it and the above process repeats itself.
By increasing supply at higher price points up to the point of what the market demands, the supply at lower prices increases.
Maybe your scenario benefits the bottom if the gap between supply and demand wasn't so wide, and new dollar input wasn't so easily achieved.
The ability to actually develop the quantity of units under R-CG needed to have a tangible impact won't even meet the pace of current demand, let alone future demand that's increasing daily.
Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, but it's only a sliver of the solution.
By increasing supply at higher price points up to the point of what the market demands, the supply at lower prices increases.
Which is a slow and convoluted process compared to new housing supply offered by greenfield development at all price ranges. Supposedly blanket rezoning will only add up to 1500 new units a year. https://twitter.com/user/status/1782454323777241120
Up-zoning can be helpful as a supplement, but too often anti-sprawl groups try to make it as the primary new housing option and prevent growth on the edge.
The Following User Says Thank You to accord1999 For This Useful Post:
Maybe your scenario benefits the bottom if the gap between supply and demand wasn't so wide, and new dollar input wasn't so easily achieved.
The ability to actually develop the quantity of units under R-CG needed to have a tangible impact won't even meet the pace of current demand, let alone future demand that's increasing daily.
Doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, but it's only a sliver of the solution.
I agree that this isn't going to solve the situation all by itself. Is there one solution that ever will? No action should ever be taken unless it resolves a problem all on its own?
Yes, this won't see sweeping changes in improving density immediately but it is a systemic change that should improve the situation over the long-term. On the other hand, why are people catastrophizing the impact of the potential for increased density in their neighbourhoods if there won't be sweeping changes?
Which is a slow and convoluted process compared to new housing supply offered by greenfield development at all price ranges. Supposedly blanket rezoning will only add up to 1500 new units a year. https://twitter.com/user/status/1782454323777241120
Up-zoning can be helpful as a supplement, but too often anti-sprawl groups try to make it as the primary new housing option and prevent growth on the edge.
It's one plank in the strategy to increase housing. No one is saying it is the whole answer to the problem; other than opponents.
While not entirely the same, Houston is pretty well known for not have any land-use codes, with various caveats:
Outcomes are generally the same, but cheaper/faster than cities with land use ordinances:
Also, i could be completely off here and the two couldn't be similar at all. but, it's interesting
I think the biggest problem with the Houston no zoning expirement is tilting the scales by building massive road infrastructure everywhere.
I'd be curious to see what kind of city you'd end up with if you did that and combined it with a massive investment in transit instead.
In Houston, the assumption is that having a grocery store every 10km is fine, because it's a forgone conclusion that you need to jump on a giant freeway to get there, and as a result, that city is an incredible hell hole which a dread ever having to visit.
Which is a slow and convoluted process compared to new housing supply offered by greenfield development at all price ranges. Supposedly blanket rezoning will only add up to 1500 new units a year. https://twitter.com/user/status/1782454323777241120
And I'll repeat myself, if there are only going to be 1500 new units a year due to this policy, where's the problem? How many people are going to be negatively affected?
If a slow and convoluted process is a bad thing, why are people so insistent on retaining the existing slow and convoluted process of re-zoning RC-1 land?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to D as in David For This Useful Post:
I agree that this isn't going to solve the situation all by itself. Is there one solution that ever will? No action should ever be taken unless it resolves a problem all on its own?
Yes, this won't see sweeping changes in improving density immediately but it is a systemic change that should improve the situation over the long-term. On the other hand, why are people catastrophizing the impact of the potential for increased density in their neighbourhoods if there won't be sweeping changes?
Hard to think of anything but summarizing it as fear.
If a slow and convoluted process is a bad thing, why are people so insistent on retaining the existing slow and convoluted process of re-zoning RC-1 land?
People have less risk tolerance for some things like their house. Even if the risk of a negative impact on their house is very low, it's not the 0% they want it to be. And perhaps like the safety of driving vs flying, the feeling of lack of personal control and input (if blanket re-zoning passes) amplifies the risk beyond it's actual likelihood.
Last edited by accord1999; 04-22-2024 at 03:54 PM.
