Real estate in Calgary - another bubble?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Mull

I could be wrong... but in my mind-

Calgary historically also had its downtown rents driven by business developed locally, and not international business. Oil oil oil, and supporting oil oil oil. Throw in some Banking which is Canadian at least.

Have we ever really historically seen international firms set up large shops here that were not chasing oil money?

I wonder if there is an opportunity to chase TO and Vancouver mining HQ. I know more natural resources isn't what people want, but jobs are jobs. Companies like to have their HQ where they have industry, but if Kenney's low tax argument had ANY legs, you think these mining HQ would be the first to jump here given our high level of technical people in the City, close proximity to BC, and other attractive options listed in this thread.

Or maybe Kenney is using an outdated 1980's economic model and doesn't understand how the world works?

Teck has an office here. Actually a lot of the "natural resources" companies do have offices here, you just haven't noticed.

They just don't need 50 floors of office space each.

I can also tell you that the NDP during their time in office drove away a lot of "natural resources" investment.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

In Japan, houses are completely disposable.

The cost of demolition and construction is unlikely to make that the norm in North America. I suppose if we start moving towards pre-fab housing, with lower labour inputs, that could be an option.

If we could get the of a 2000+ square foot pre-fab home under $200k, so that it's comparable with renovating, it could become a reality.

[jammies]

3d printing will entirely alter the construction and cost of construction of houses in the next decade. It's likely it'll be cheaper to knock down older houses and build new than to do more than a smidgen of renovation.

Here's a decent video of what can be done already: https://youtu.be/lZh8E6zZdzk

[Fuzz]

Not sure we should be encouraging more concrete use in construction. I understand some places it's a good option, but it's horrible for CO2 emissions.

[jammies]

Materials are only part of the emissions created by building structures. And it won't matter if it brings costs down significantly.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by jammies

Materials are only part of the emissions created by building structures. And it won't matter if it brings costs down significantly.

Well then, I guess I better stop fixing up this old dump!

[jammies]

To be clear, I'm not saying emissions are not a concern. That's just not going to be enough, imo, to prevent the tech from dominating.

Currently, building a 2 story house creates about 80 tonnes of carbon, if I recall correctly. I can't find anything about how much a 3d printed equivalent creates, but it's definitely not going to take as much transportation of materials or labour (which means people driving back and forth to the site for months) to construct, nor will there be as much wastage.

[Fuzz]

I think my garage pad and small wall was about 3-4 tonnes of carbon(approx 700 sq ft) . Knowing that, I'd imagine a house as they showed(fairly small) to be maybe 4-6 times that. So you may well be correct that it is less, though at our current McMansion equivalent sizes, it could get close.


I assume, thoguh, that they still need to be framed and insulated inside? Maybe not in Mexico, but I'm not sure it would be warm enough here. Or would they?

[jammies]

No framing, that is one of the big advantages. If it needs insulation, generally there's a gap between inner and outer walls that gets filled with such separately from the printing, but it's pretty easy as they dump it in and then seal it over.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Not sure we should be encouraging more concrete use in construction. I understand some places it's a good option, but it's horrible for CO2 emissions.

Materials, generally, make a up a small portion of the CO2 emissions from construction:

https://www.iea.org/reports/global-s...struction-2019

The buildings and construction sector accounted for 36% of final energy use and 39% of energy and process-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2018, 11% of which resulted from manufacturing building materials and products such as steel, cement and glass.

The process itself is extremely carbon heavy. My only worry with pre-fab, is that eventually, like all other manufacturing, we'll end up dependent on materials and manufacturing from China. Even the 3rd printed houses, still have a lot of pre-fab parts.

[Maccalus]

I think that the 3d printing "Savings" as they work at this point of time are limited when it comes to housing. Current 3d printing technology is changing the building process of the framing of the house from wood framing to poured concrete (concrete is still poured whether into a mold or via machine). This does not make drastically change the amount of work or cost of finishing (basically everything interior), basements, plumbing, electrical, permitting, etc. This is where the bulk of the cost, labour and time is in house construction.

Framing costs are around 10% of a houses build cost and framing of a house can be completed in a week with a crew of around 4-6 people. Some of the panels/trusses can be factory cut significantly reducing wastage.

Just switching to 3d printing isn't going to make housing cheap on its own.

[Maccalus]

For reference, ICF Construction, which is basically the same as the "3d printed housing" was approximately 30% more in framing costs for a house (pre covid lumber pricing)

https://www.constructioncanada.net/q...efits-of-icfs/

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by jammies

Currently, building a 2 story house creates about 80 tonnes of carbon, if I recall correctly. I can't find anything about how much a 3d printed equivalent creates, but it's definitely not going to take as much transportation of materials or labour (which means people driving back and forth to the site for months) to construct, nor will there be as much wastage.

I imagine there's still all the plumbing, electrical, floors/tiles and other finishings that need to be done that I assume can't be part of that initial 3D pour....as well as of course the initial foundation excavation and landscaping. Maybe a construction industry guy like 4x4 can give us more insight, but I still see a good chunk of trades coming and going. And then on the material side, resource extraction will need to be increased to match the additional concrete demand, plus a whole swath of new machines that have to be built and serviced as a result of this type of construction type. Will that be less carbon intensive?

Price wise, I've looked into prefab houses before, and in the end, there was very little savings when all was said and done. Hopefully 3D can help with that.

Either way it's all really cool, and 3D's influence is growing all the time... but I guess I'm a touch skeptical about how drastically more beneficial it will be or if will change things that much in 10 years. But perhaps it doesn't necessarily need to be drastic or quick...sometimes even small steps are good ones.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blankall

I see this everywhere. A friend's parents just recently upgraded to an even larger house with four extra bedrooms.....It's baffling to me. Now that real estate has gone up in price, it's a great time to sell and downgrade. The extra equity can be invested, and boomers could live pretty great retirements, rent/mortgage free, while also bringing in investment income. Most boomer couples selling their primary home could probably afford a really nice 2 bedroom condo in the neighbourhood of their choosing, then use the investment income to go on a fancy trip or two every year, without digging into the capital.

Instead, the norm just appears to be have 2 extra bedrooms designed for children in your house that will almost never get used. After a certain age, what use are you getting from your yard, that you couldn't get from visiting a nearby park?

I guess it's just an ego thing. Boomers don't want to accept having to move into a retirement home. Maybe change just becomes too difficult.

I live in a suburban community with a lot of older people. People around here become very attached to their neighbourhoods. Many older residents have been here 30+ years and rarely venture more than a couple km from their homes once they retire. They like their space. The quiet. The privacy. Their yards and gardens. The familiar stores. Few would have any enthusiasm for selling and moving to a different, higher-density part of the city.

A more welcome option might be building townhouses and condos in the suburbs where seniors already live. A complex is being constructed at the Oakridge Co-op, and I expect the units will sell fast (if they aren’t sold out already).

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

I think that the 3d printing "Savings" as they work at this point of time are limited when it comes to housing. Current 3d printing technology is changing the building process of the framing of the house from wood framing to poured concrete (concrete is still poured whether into a mold or via machine). This does not make drastically change the amount of work or cost of finishing (basically everything interior), basements, plumbing, electrical, permitting, etc. This is where the bulk of the cost, labour and time is in house construction.

Sure, but we're in the infancy of the technology, which is why it hasn't taken over already. There is work, for example being done on printing PVC pipe for plumbing. There are methods for enclosing conduit during the pour and leaving egress points for electrical, rather than cutting/drilling the concrete after.. Not everything is going to be able to be printed, certainly. but the same economies that pertain to manufactured or modular houses apply to printed houses as well.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by jammies

3d printing will entirely alter the construction and cost of construction of houses in the next decade. It's likely it'll be cheaper to knock down older houses and build new than to do more than a smidgen of renovation.

Here's a decent video of what can be done already: https://youtu.be/lZh8E6zZdzk

Extruding walls out of concrete only replaces a tiny percentage of labour/material on a project. A few days work for stud framing and sheathing walls is replaced by setup/takedown and rental of a massive 3-D printer and a continual concrete pour which = expensive.

It’ll never happen either because structural engineers won’t sign off on it and building code and energy code in Canada would take many decades of revisions before anything of the sort would be legal.

Won’t even get into the dozens of components that integrate with the printed form that is the true labour.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

In Japan, houses are completely disposable.

I was listening to a podcast on this subject about Japan, and the reason why it's so popular to rent there rather than own. Apparently in Japan, a lot of houses are only built to last 10 to 15 years before they heed to be rebuilt. I guess it makes sense given the frequencies of tsunamis and earthquakes there.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

It’ll never happen either because structural engineers won’t sign off on it and building code and energy code in Canada would take many decades of revisions before anything of the sort would be legal.

And yet they allow this type of construction in Germany, that well-known hotbed of chaos and disorder. You're right, it might be good enough for those free-wheeling Germans, but it'll never happen here.

[boogerz]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I was listening to a podcast on this subject about Japan, and the reason why it's so popular to rent there rather than own. Apparently in Japan, a lot of houses are only built to last 10 to 15 years before they heed to be rebuilt. I guess it makes sense given the frequencies of tsunamis and earthquakes there.

10-15 years sounds too short. Everywhere I've read over the years generally indicates 25-30 year lifespans for houses in Japan. Still quite short though.

The Japanese generally like new things though. That's also one of the reasons (besides the Sha-Ken) why their old cars are worthless domestically and get exported to North America and Western Europe for cheap.

I like the thought of making a house a consumable the way that Japan does. Does anyone truly want to live in a 40-100 year old house that may or may not up to modern building code...? Think of all the houses in Calgary that still have aluminum wiring, poly b, weird basement heights, inefficient floor layouts, etc.

It'd be great to renew the housing stock in the inner city without having to drop $$$$ on an infill so that people can live where they actually want to live within the city instead of being forced into the far flung burbs because we've commoditized housing.

[ripTDR]

As far as concrete goes, construction grade sand is starting to become a non renewable resource.



https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...ng-out-of-sand


just to add more complications