Calgary eliminates sprawl subsidies for new housing

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by heep223

Whoever's listing this is should fire their realtor....

You'd be surprised at how many listings mention an illegal basement suite. As someone who was recently searching for a 4 bedroom home in the inner city for under $600K (which I thought couldn't be found, but what do I know), probably 2/3 of the listings had a mention of an illegal basement suite.

I think it's ridiculous, but it's pretty common.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by shermanator

You'd be surprised at how many listings mention an illegal basement suite. As someone who was recently searching for a 4 bedroom home in the inner city for under $600K (which I thought couldn't be found, but what do I know), probably 2/3 of the listings had a mention of an illegal basement suite.

I think it's ridiculous, but it's pretty common.

That's crazy and awesome.

[Daradon]

Re Polak:

Yeah, but sprawl will still be sprawl whether you live in the inner city or not. You coulda had a house in NW and a job in the SE. That would be even worse.

Living closer to the city on average makes the commute better. Not 100%, but on average. Also containing sprawl lessens everyones commute and infrastructure costs.

[SeeGeeWhy]

I was musing with a friend not long ago about negotiating a deal with the city to develop an area, and take on the cost of developing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure to that area in exchange for a % of the property tax revenue generated by the area. I still think this could work, but I don't know how many developers would be in it for the long haul like that.

That, and doing a car sharing concept for high density living. Buying a unit in a tower wouldn't give you title access to a parking lot space, but to an entire vehicle that gets shared by the unit owners.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by heep223

That's crazy and awesome.

On occasion, someone might try to be sneaky and call the suite an "in-law suite" but pretty much everyone knows it's the same thing. As Sherminator says, saying "illegal suite" is pretty common on lots of property listings. Some even say it's a great investment property because the suites will be legal once the zoning is changed. Some go as far as to stating how much rent they have been collecting.

[SebC]

This is so weird. The whole election was fought over this. The yop-gobblers won a council majority. Now they've just surrendered. I was expecting a drawn out bloodbath.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by polak

Living inner city makes perfect sense.... If you're very confident that you won't be forced to work outside of the inner city over the life of your mortgage. Otherwise you're just paying a high premium for a small place that's an annoying drive away from everything but Nightclubs, High End restaurants and the Drop-in Center.

....

I have heard this argument many times from different people and I still don't understand what it is I am farther away from than them. People who have said this in the past to me lived in either Evanston, Mahogany, or Cranston. I'm closer to pretty much everything you can imagine than any of them, except maybe the new south campus hospital but I'm not too worried about living near a hospital, maybe once i'm 80... Plus I have the added benefit of walking to work, close to C-train and in the car2go area. I live in Kensington and gladly pay the premium to not sit in my car for an extra 8-12 (even more in bad winter weather) hours a week commuting. I did that and it drove me nuts.

oh and living in the same house for the life of your mortgage? who does that.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Re Polak:

Yeah, but sprawl will still be sprawl whether you live in the inner city or not. You coulda had a house in NW and a job in the SE. That would be even worse.

Living closer to the city on average makes the commute better. Not 100%, but on average. Also containing sprawl lessens everyones commute and infrastructure costs.

I work in NE and live in the SE but I have two routes I can take that are under 30 minutes in rush hour (Deerfoot and Stony). Before the ring road I would've agreed but these big expensive infrastructure projects really do make life a lot easier for the suburbanites that happen to live near them.

Originally Posted by Swarly

I have heard this argument many times from different people and I still don't understand what it is I am farther away from than them. People who have said this in the past to me lived in either Evanston, Mahogany, or Cranston. I'm closer to pretty much everything you can imagine than any of them, except maybe the new south campus hospital but I'm not too worried about living near a hospital, maybe once i'm 80... Plus I have the added benefit of walking to work, close to C-train and in the car2go area. I live in Kensington and gladly pay the premium to not sit in my car for an extra 8-12 (even more in bad winter weather) hours a week commuting. I did that and it drove me nuts.

What do you mean? The point of suburban communities (the good ones at least) is that they are almost self sufficient. They have the grocery stores, bars, restaurants, schools, gas stations and other amenities for the residents that live there. Some of them are obviously better than others.

In the end, it really just depends on the priorities of the buyer. Stuff like the confidence in the ability to pick and choose where you work, importance of space, location of friends/family and how often you go to them, what amenities are important, blah blah blah.

I know I said it in a tongue in cheek manner but I really do understand why people choose to live in the inner city, but for me it just wasn't a good fit, even if there wasn't a premium price for the location.

oh and living in the same house for the life of your mortgage? who does that.

Well if Oil doesn't rebound...

[worth]

Originally Posted by tete

We're a family of three living in a 2 bedroom condo in the Beltline. We are two blocks away from Safeway, three from Co-op. My daughter's school (she will attend it next year) is two blocks away. We have several parks within a couple minutes walk. I commute on foot to work and her daycare. Yes, we do drive out to the 'burbs for Costco shopping, but it's not essential. There is a new (small) Canadian Tire going in a few blocks away and a new grocery store. Yes, if we had a second child, it would be harder to stay in Beltline and I do wish there were more low-rise, townhouse/brownstone options here, but there's really no need to move at this point. I love this neighbourhood, before having kids and now.

I think I live on the same black as you, hah.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Swarly

I have heard this argument many times from different people and I still don't understand what it is I am farther away from than them. People who have said this in the past to me lived in either Evanston, Mahogany, or Cranston. I'm closer to pretty much everything you can imagine than any of them, except maybe the new south campus hospital but I'm not too worried about living near a hospital, maybe once i'm 80... Plus I have the added benefit of walking to work, close to C-train and in the car2go area. I live in Kensington and gladly pay the premium to not sit in my car for an extra 8-12 (even more in bad winter weather) hours a week commuting. I did that and it drove me nuts.

oh and living in the same house for the life of your mortgage? who does that.

You're only 5 clicks from the foothills closer then probably 75% or more of the city is to a hospital. Hell the west side of cranston is almost that far away from the south health campus and google tells me it's longer drive.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by shermanator

You'd be surprised at how many listings mention an illegal basement suite. As someone who was recently searching for a 4 bedroom home in the inner city for under $600K (which I thought couldn't be found, but what do I know), probably 2/3 of the listings had a mention of an illegal basement suite.

I think it's ridiculous, but it's pretty common.

Realtors have to disclose the legality of any basement development. No permits for a recent development or an illegal suite is a patent defect so it must be disclosed by those pesky real estate monkeys.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is so weird. The whole election was fought over this. The yop-gobblers© won a council majority. Now they've just surrendered. I was expecting a drawn out bloodbath.

fyp

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by polak

I work in NE and live in the SE but I have two routes I can take that are under 30 minutes in rush hour (Deerfoot and Stony). Before the ring road I would've agreed but these big expensive infrastructure projects really do make life a lot easier for the suburbanites that happen to live near them.

Right, well that's kinda the point. Stoney was a massive expense. Billions and billions. Had we planned earlier, it may not have been needed. That would have saved everyone money and taxes.

Ultimately I think it's ok. I'm not against Stoney, or suburbanites. I'm a suburbanite myself, though I live in a building so I guess I get points for not having a yard and keeping my footprint small. I just mean, and I think a lot of people do, that we didn't have to think about issues like this in the past. Nowadays it's very important we do. It's importance for everyone to find a balance.

And I think this is the right solution. It's not like suburbanites are being penalized, their just not getting 'paid' (subsidized) to live further and further away. Now they have to pay their fair share for the new infrastructure. And it's really not that much, as has been discussed.

For a long time it was in Calgary's best interest to expand. For a lot of different reasons. It isn't anymore, so we have change priorities around some. It's not about putting one lifestyle ahead of the other, it's just about making things as sustainable as possible, and as fair for everyone as possible. And thinking ahead when planning the city, and how it may affect future generations.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by polak

...
What do you mean? The point of suburban communities (the good ones at least) is that they are almost self sufficient. They have the grocery stores, bars, restaurants, schools, gas stations and other amenities for the residents that live there. Some of them are obviously better than others.

In the end, it really just depends on the priorities of the buyer. Stuff like the confidence in the ability to pick and choose where you work, importance of space, location of friends/family and how often you go to them, what amenities are important, blah blah blah.

I know I said it in a tongue in cheek manner but I really do understand why people choose to live in the inner city, but for me it just wasn't a good fit, even if there wasn't a premium price for the location.

...

that is a good point, most of the better communities are self sufficient. I also totally understand certain people's reasoning for living in the 'burbs. It certainly is not for me, so I just took issue with being told that I'm 'such a far drive from anything' (not specifically at you polak, I've been told this by people to my face before) and it is completely made up comment.

basically don't tell me why my reasons for living where I do are less important than your reasons for where you live and we'll all get along fine

[#-3]

allot of the latte sippers here are pretty funny. Their basic argument is, if you made more money, or different lifestyle choices, or just generally wanted to live like me, you could too be a latte sipping hippy living in a 600 sqft box for $1800/month.

I'm not saying it is wrong to choice that type of lifestyle, but I'm guessing us YOP gobblers don't chose that lifestyle because we don't find it remotely attractive. We want a big house and a quite park near by because we want space for our kids to to have toys, or a dog without going down 7 stories for every piss, or to have our large families over regularly, because we want to take our family to a small playground with a few people at it rather than a crowed pathway.

There are lifestyle choices people make, because it's what will make them happy. And to assume it would not be an imposition on me to live more like you is kind of funny.

This topic also makes we wonder. Who is paying for all of those water main repairs on 14th? Why do some many of you Latte sipping hippies think the CRL for east village was such a good idea? What do I care if some place a few blocks from your home is where bums like to gather and shoot up. Why should my tax dollars go towards addressing innercity problems when they could just send a bill to everyone living in those communities.

I understand that the city wants to slow outward development for many reasons. So I do understand to policy decision going forward. But to assert some tax payers should have user fees on public infrastructure is kind of crazy. I don't think that's what this policy is about, I think its about trying to steer development to where the city needs it, in the past it went the other way, because that is where the city needed development.

[corporatejay]

The thing is, we are talking about the outer limits of the city here.

There is no levy on living in Woodbine, or Canyon Meadows, Lake Bonavista, Acadia, Willowpark, Haysboro or any of these other neighbourhoods, where, I can assure you can get a nice single family home for 300k.

The problem is you don't get a modern floor plan, granite, hardwood and all the bells and whistles you would in a new house, and people want their bells and whistles.

[tvp2003]

Inner city = closer to the Dome.

Priorities people!

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by #-3

allot of the latte sippers here are pretty funny. Their basic argument is, if you made more money, or different lifestyle choices, or just generally wanted to live like me, you could too be a latte sipping hippy living in a 600 sqft box for $1800/month.

I'm not saying it is wrong to choice that type of lifestyle, but I'm guessing us YOP gobblers don't chose that lifestyle because we don't find it remotely attractive. We want a big house and a quite park near by because we want space for our kids to to have toys, or a dog without going down 7 stories for every piss, or to have our large families over regularly, because we want to take our family to a small playground with a few people at it rather than a crowed pathway.

There are lifestyle choices people make, because it's what will make them happy. And to assume it would not be an imposition on me to live more like you is kind of funny.

This topic also makes we wonder. Who is paying for all of those water main repairs on 14th? Why do some many of you Latte sipping hippies think the CRL for east village was such a good idea? What do I care if some place a few blocks from your home is where bums like to gather and shoot up. Why should my tax dollars go towards addressing innercity problems when they could just send a bill to everyone living in those communities. It's not really about driving development in one place or another, but ensuring that development is more financially sustainable for the City, wherever it happens.

I understand that the city wants to slow outward development for many reasons. So I do understand to policy decision going forward. But to assert some tax payers should have user fees on public infrastructure is kind of crazy. I don't think that's what this policy is about, I think its about trying to steer development to where the city needs it, in the past it went the other way, because that is where the city needed development.

There's apartment-dwelling latte sippers (often at the childless stage) but also a lot of latte sippers with kids in (decently large) inner city houses.

As for the levy. There is a new levy for redevelopment to help cover the cost of new water and wastewater treatment capacity. The new community levies have been a round for a long time, but now cover "100%" of the cost of infrastructure to service those communities. Previously, existing rate-payers and tax-payers picked up more of the tab for infrastructure that primarily benefitted specific new subvivisions. Developers already paid all on-site infrastructure costs, this is for off-sites like pipe extensions, treatment, interchanges, fire stations, rec centres and so forth. Redevelopment does pay for things like sanitary pipe upgrades, not through a levy, but through one-off payments if their development is triggering a capacity constraint. Levies are usually more on per unit basis, but are predictable, these one-offs are not predictable.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

The thing is, we are talking about the outer limits of the city here.

There is no levy on living in Woodbine, or Canyon Meadows, Lake Bonavista, Acadia, Willowpark, Haysboro or any of these other neighbourhoods, where, I can assure you can get a nice single family home for 300k.

The problem is you don't get a modern floor plan, granite, hardwood and all the bells and whistles you would in a new house, and people want their bells and whistles.

Lol. Ok, now just back away from talking complete sh1t. First of all, good luck finding single family in any of those neighbourhoods for $300, except for maybe Woodbine. for a dilapidated duples for $299. But secondly, don't go assuming people are doing it for the "bells and whistles" when your mystical alternative involves the expensive maintenance that comes with 20-40 year old houses.

Lots of good posts in this thread. Lets keep it that way, and refrain from talking out the ass.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by #-3

Why do some many of you Latte sipping hippies think the CRL for east village was such a good idea?

The CRL is a good idea because it spent the tax revenue to be generated by the East Village on the things that will have made that revenue exist.