*Updated* Ongoing Bank of Canada Benchmark Rate Announcements

[Bill Bumface]

Usually the same people that want "personal freedoms" and "small government" ... unless it has to do with controlling their neighbours actions with their own land.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Usually the same people that want "personal freedoms" and "small government" ... unless it has to do with controlling their neighbours actions with their own land.

And also apoplectic at the idea of needing a building permit that insists on a guard rail for the new deck they want to build. But it's always everyone else 'ruining' the neighbourhood.

[PeteMoss]

Everyone who flips out at upzoning should go visit these neighbourhoods in the GTA.

My grandparents used to live there, when I was a kid the entire neighbourhood was old 1930s type houses with giant yards. Now every 3rd one is torn down and some new modern house is built.


There is zero neighbourhood aesthetic when you've got smaller bungelows built in the 1930s with a huge yard next to some giant double garage new build right on the road with zero yard. If you chuck some apartment building on the street - its not going to throw anything off.

Example here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3959...l=en&entry=ttu

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Everyone who flips out at upzoning should go visit these neighbourhoods in the GTA.

My grandparents used to live there, when I was a kid the entire neighbourhood was old 1930s type houses with giant yards. Now every 3rd one is torn down and some new modern house is built.


There is zero neighbourhood aesthetic when you've got smaller bungelows built in the 1930s with a huge yard next to some giant double garage new build right on the road with zero yard. If you chuck some apartment building on the street - its not going to throw anything off.

Example here:
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.3959...l=en&entry=ttu

I can understand that sentiment. I just look at an area like mine, where the homes are from the 1970's and I can't say that I'd be too excited about upzoning there.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Slava

I can understand that sentiment. I just look at an area like mine, where the homes are from the 1970's and I can't say that I'd be too excited about upzoning there.

I'd assume Calgary isn't going to be a huge location for this since the housing costs aren't increasing like they have in the areas within 2 hours of Toronto or Vancouver.

[rohara66]

Originally Posted by GGG

Next you create a crown corp to build rental housing on a break even basis.

Anything that the government is involved in constructing cost significantly more then literally everything the private sector can build. They are the most inefficient developer on planet earth and I doubt they can construct anything at a break even point.



Give developers a break (permit timelines, permit costs) to construct market rentals). Done.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Usually the same people that want "personal freedoms" and "small government" ... unless it has to do with controlling their neighbours actions with their own land.

I think you are stretching things for argument purposes. Being against upzoning has nothing to do with a person's political leanings.

It's important that anyone wishing to build beside you doesn't directly interfere with your quality of life. For example, things like shading and privacy are two things that should be considered before a permit is issued.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think you are stretching things for argument purposes. Being against upzoning has nothing to do with a person's political leanings.

Yeah, not a lot of Conservative voters in the Annex and Kitsalano. The heritage near-inner-city neighbourhoods where upzoning battles get waged are NDP and Liberal stomping grounds politically, with residents more likely to tune in to the CBC than Fox News.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think you are stretching things for argument purposes. Being against upzoning has nothing to do with a person's political leanings.

It's important that anyone wishing to build beside you doesn't directly interfere with your quality of life. For example, things like shading and privacy are two things that should be considered before a permit is issued.

As long as you are consistent - go nuts. You can complain about house prices and then also complain when they try to build new houses around you. Or complain about your taxes going up because all the new houses are built out in the boonies because that's the only land left that people are ok with being developed even if it costs a bucket load of cash to run services out there.

I'm 2 hours from Toronto and our house prices were going wild because it was affordable compared to Toronto and everything within an hour of Toronto is wildly expensive.

[you&me]

In regards to upzoning, I think it makes sense to do it in stages, rather than a single, city-wide blanket like (I think) GGG was proposing.

Let's be realistic - it's not like Calgary has such a shortage of underused or brownfield sites that we need to start upzoning across the city so we can teardown corner lots in Edgemont or (*GASP*) Bonavista to develop 4 townhomes.

I believe the city implemented a "Main Streets" upzoning policy recently, where properties along arterial roads are upzoned... Let's work our way through that a little bit first before we get on with something like blanket 4-stories-everywhere zoning.

[PeteMoss]

I do think there should be a vacancy tax on properties in prime areas in the city. No idea about Calgary, but you can tear down like 50% of our downtown that sits empty and build out properties and and come up with a lot more housing here than you could by building some tiny townhouse in an neighbourhood.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by you&me

In regards to upzoning, I think it makes sense to do it in stages, rather than a single, city-wide blanket like (I think) GGG was proposing.

Let's be realistic - it's not like Calgary has such a shortage of underused or brownfield sites that we need to start upzoning across the city so we can teardown corner lots in Edgemont or (*GASP*) Bonavista to develop 4 townhomes.

I believe the city implemented a "Main Streets" upzoning policy recently, where properties along arterial roads are upzoned... Let's work our way through that a little bit first before we get on with something like blanket 4-stories-everywhere zoning.

If you want to really deal with supply issues, you need to open up a significant amount of zoning at once. Otherwise, you end up in a situation where new builds are slowly trickled into the market and never actually satisfy demand.

That being said, obviously there needs to be a lot of planning and foresight into which areas actually get upzoned, with transportation being a major consideration. For example, you should be pushing for upzoning along major arteries, transit lines, and in central neighbourhoods. A lot of these areas are already rundown to begin with, so I don't see how putting in new builds with their own amenities decreases the character of any of these neighbourhoods.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by blankall

If you want to really deal with supply issues, you need to open up a significant amount of zoning at once. Otherwise, you end up in a situation where new builds are slowly trickled into the market and never actually satisfy demand.

That being said, obviously there needs to be a lot of planning and foresight into which areas actually get upzoned, with transportation being a major consideration. For example, you should be pushing for upzoning along major arteries, transit lines, and in central neighbourhoods. A lot of these areas are already rundown to begin with, so I don't see how putting in new builds with their own amenities decreases the character of any of these neighbourhoods.

I think we're saying the same thing?

To be clear, I think we should be focussing on upzoning along arterial roads, along with under-utilized commercial properties. If you take inner city SW Calgary, I'm thinking Elbow Dr, Richmond Rd, 50 / 33 / 26 / 17 aves & 14 / 20 / 33 / 37 streets... That's probably dozens of kms of frontage, all with existing transit infrastructure.

Napkin-mathing that as 24kms of linear development, divided by 6m of frontage for your average 2 story, 3 bedroom row/townhouse, you get about 4,000 units or housing for more than 10,000 people. And that's the lowest of the low-hanging fruit as far as built form goes. If you go to a 4 story condo, like this new development in Marda Loop, you get 74 units over about 80 linear meters, or roughly 1 unit per meter... You're now accomodating >30,000 people by upzoning just those 8 streets (not including Richmond and Elbow), and that's barely scratching the surface.

IMO, once that's more established / exhausted, then we can start knocking on Sliver's door to build a midblock 4-plex in Bonavista.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I think you are stretching things for argument purposes. Being against upzoning has nothing to do with a person's political leanings.

It's important that anyone wishing to build beside you doesn't directly interfere with your quality of life. For example, things like shading and privacy are two things that should be considered before a permit is issued.

Ignore the political slant. We can't freeze the city in time and pretend it's not growing at a rapid rate.

The centre of a 1.5M person city looks a lot different (and needs to look a lot different) than a 750k person city.

It's not reasonable to buy a place and expect the type of buildings adjacent to your property to be the same for 50 years.

Yeah shadows and noise and stuff suck, no question. I'd love to be able to veto my neighbours selling their house to some family with a barking dog and screaming kids so that it doesn't reduce the enjoyment of my property. That's not reasonable though, is it? In being good citizens, well all have to suck up some change and some compromise as our city and the world changes around us.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Ignore the political slant. We can't freeze the city in time and pretend it's not growing at a rapid rate.

The centre of a 1.5M person city looks a lot different (and needs to look a lot different) than a 750k person city.

It's not reasonable to buy a place and expect the type of buildings adjacent to your property to be the same for 50 years.

Yeah shadows and noise and stuff suck, no question. I'd love to be able to veto my neighbours selling their house to some family with a barking dog and screaming kids so that it doesn't reduce the enjoyment of my property. That's not reasonable though, is it? In being good citizens, well all have to suck up some change and some compromise as our city and the world changes around us.

Unfortunately I'm starting to learn you are right. However, when things are obviously done for personal profit, without care for the people involved, and false arguments are employed, I get concerned.

For example, many people say that the communities, they wish to change, are old and in poor shape, and that is absolutely untrue. Most homes built in the 1950s have been significantly upgraded to increase their value. Also the building that went on in the 1950s was, in many ways, superior to what has happened in the last 20 or so years. I was talking to a group of renovators, working on an older home up the street recently, and they told me that when they go into the attic of a house built in the 1950s, it is perfectly dry. In fact they said they found an old raizor blade that didn't have a drop of rust on it in the house they were working on. Whereas, they said in all the houses built from the 1990s on, the attics were all wet.

Another untruth is that the upzoning is done to give the poor people a chance to live in the nicer areas. When you can purchase a 1950s bungalow for $700,000. with a large lot, and then turn around and subdivide the lot, and build two infills for $800,00. each, you certainly aren't helping the poor.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1678744671973933056

This is the main thing keeping housing market buoyant once the supply ticks up with these rates is when it gets interesting.

[Azure]

It is rather simple at this point.

High immigration levels.
Low housing levels.

Regardless of anything else, those two things are going to be an issue.

I don't have an issue with high immigration levels because I do believe there is a labour shortage, and the immigrants I work with are hard working people who want to provide for their family and make Canada a better country, but at some point something is not lining up, and our governments are slow to realize this.

Also, housing is provincial or municipal. Immigration is federal. Should we expect the Feds to build houses in small town Manitoba? Winnipeg? Calgary? No, of course not. So why are our governments, whether provincial or local being given a pass?

In my area, the planning district is a nightmare to work with for housing. Despite many complaints, nothing has been done. Run stupidity like that up the line, and it does simply equal less housing starts each year, despite there being a constant backlog.

I'd imagine you can find similar circumstances everywhere.

So, as much as I love to rag on the Liberals all the time, given what I see in my local community or even in Winnipeg & beyond, not sure I can bag the Liberals fully on this one.

Also, in Winnipeg there is a high demand for trucking & logistics, and with Centerport happening, the simply fact is that immigration is filling those trucking spots. Can we attribute that to 'oh they will work for less money than 2nd or 3rd generation Canadians?" Well I'm not sure, because everyone in the trucking industry I talk to says you can make a VERY good living these days as a truck driver. With the industry set to explode the next 10 years, what do we really think the government should do here?

The problem that the Feds have is that they're forcing the BoC into a everything looks like a nail policy of driving up rates, when we all know there is much, much more going on that makes inflation go higher.

The Feds could do a lot.

Most importantly develop legislation that encourages competition within every market.

Telecom
Food

Being two big ones. More competition and open access for outside investment would drive down prices.

End of the day, this entire economic process is really just benefiting the rich. Bell, Telus, Rogers, Loblaws, etc. All getting rich while Canadians struggle.

One other question with the inflation issue. Costco is almost ALWAYS cheaper on everything. What is holding people back from shopping there?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is rather simple at this point.

High immigration levels.
Low housing levels.

Regardless of anything else, those two things are going to be an issue.

I don't have an issue with high immigration levels because I do believe there is a labour shortage, and the immigrants I work with are hard working people who want to provide for their family and make Canada a better country, but at some point something is not lining up, and our governments are slow to realize this.

Also, housing is provincial or municipal. Immigration is federal. Should we expect the Feds to build houses in small town Manitoba? Winnipeg? Calgary? No, of course not. So why are our governments, whether provincial or local being given a pass?

In my area, the planning district is a nightmare to work with for housing. Despite many complaints, nothing has been done. Run stupidity like that up the line, and it does simply equal less housing starts each year, despite there being a constant backlog.

I'd imagine you can find similar circumstances everywhere.

So, as much as I love to rag on the Liberals all the time, given what I see in my local community or even in Winnipeg & beyond, not sure I can bag the Liberals fully on this one.

Also, in Winnipeg there is a high demand for trucking & logistics, and with Centerport happening, the simply fact is that immigration is filling those trucking spots. Can we attribute that to 'oh they will work for less money than 2nd or 3rd generation Canadians?" Well I'm not sure, because everyone in the trucking industry I talk to says you can make a VERY good living these days as a truck driver. With the industry set to explode the next 10 years, what do we really think the government should do here?

The problem that the Feds have is that they're forcing the BoC into a everything looks like a nail policy of driving up rates, when we all know there is much, much more going on that makes inflation go higher.

The Feds could do a lot.

Most importantly develop legislation that encourages competition within every market.

Telecom
Food

Being two big ones. More competition and open access for outside investment would drive down prices.

End of the day, this entire economic process is really just benefiting the rich. Bell, Telus, Rogers, Loblaws, etc. All getting rich while Canadians struggle.

One other question with the inflation issue. Costco is almost ALWAYS cheaper on everything. What is holding people back from shopping there?

Quick response - Costco is not the silver bullet solution for everyone. It may be cheaper on a per unit basis, but you have to buy multiple units to achieve that price... Sure, that single package of bacon is $3 less that Superstore, but since you have to buy 3 of them, so you end up spending more than twice as much as you might want to on bacon that week... We're a big family and can make the most of Costco, but I feel like every item is $15... Maybe more like $20 now over the past year. That's not practical for a lot of families.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by you&me

I think we're saying the same thing?

To be clear, I think we should be focussing on upzoning along arterial roads, along with under-utilized commercial properties. If you take inner city SW Calgary, I'm thinking Elbow Dr, Richmond Rd, 50 / 33 / 26 / 17 aves & 14 / 20 / 33 / 37 streets... That's probably dozens of kms of frontage, all with existing transit infrastructure.

Napkin-mathing that as 24kms of linear development, divided by 6m of frontage for your average 2 story, 3 bedroom row/townhouse, you get about 4,000 units or housing for more than 10,000 people. And that's the lowest of the low-hanging fruit as far as built form goes. If you go to a 4 story condo, like this new development in Marda Loop, you get 74 units over about 80 linear meters, or roughly 1 unit per meter... You're now accomodating >30,000 people by upzoning just those 8 streets (not including Richmond and Elbow), and that's barely scratching the surface.

IMO, once that's more established / exhausted, then we can start knocking on Sliver's door to build a midblock 4-plex in Bonavista.

But this has already happened to a pretty significant degree - most arterials are upzoned (though maybe there is some room to densify them further).


While I'd totally support a blanket change, how about this for a compromise:
- every lot adjacent to an R-C2 zone becomes R-C2, too
- repeat the process every ~10 years

Anyone living next to an R-C2 zone is already used to dealing with the horrors!!!! of living near duplexes. But it would be a gradual and consistent change with plenty of lead time for most people.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Unfortunately I'm starting to learn you are right. However, when things are obviously done for personal profit, without care for the people involved, and false arguments are employed, I get concerned.

For example, many people say that the communities, they wish to change, are old and in poor shape, and that is absolutely untrue. Most homes built in the 1950s have been significantly upgraded to increase their value. Also the building that went on in the 1950s was, in many ways, superior to what has happened in the last 20 or so years. I was talking to a group of renovators, working on an older home up the street recently, and they told me that when they go into the attic of a house built in the 1950s, it is perfectly dry. In fact they said they found an old raizor blade that didn't have a drop of rust on it in the house they were working on. Whereas, they said in all the houses built from the 1990s on, the attics were all wet.

Another untruth is that the upzoning is done to give the poor people a chance to live in the nicer areas. When you can purchase a 1950s bungalow for $700,000. with a large lot, and then turn around and subdivide the lot, and build two infills for $800,00. each, you certainly aren't helping the poor.

I agree with most of what you say. Especially taking one of those older 1200 sq. ft. houses and throwing it in the dump for a new 2500 sq. ft. single family home. Total waste, and now there is this new massive thing to build, heat and cool.

On the point regarding subdividing a lot and putting up 2 $800k places, I actually think this does help. Once developers burn through the demand of wealthier people looking for a more dense option (duplex instead of single family), the profits will start to dry up, and they will turn their attention to other underserved sectors.

As long as we have a lineup of upper middle class people looking for large duplexes, we're going to have to resort to contrived planning measures to build lower income stuff. Historically, those policies are always flawed in some form and don't end up working all that well. At this point, I think just getting more houses built faster is our most realistic path to seeing more of the affordable options pop up. They do exist in these neighbourhoods, just much lower volume right now because more money is there to be made on the big stuff in the current tight market.