Calgary Openings, Closings, and Developments

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

flamesfever didn't say densifying is bad for the environment.

Maybe you missed the bolded sarcasm, but this was meant to state that densifying results in higher prices and is less friendly to the environment.

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Just like densifying is going to make if cheaper for people to live in these finer neighborhoods, when a developer can buy a bungalow fore $ 700,000., subdivide the lot, and build two infills that sell for a million each.

Just like densifying is environmentally friendly, when many trees are removed, the green areas in the backyards disappear, and the air quality in the neighborhoods and the lower elevation area of the downtown area becomes worse.

[blankall]

The current model of everyone owning a detached home on a large lot of non-native plant life is environmentally disastrous. We're all taking excessively large commutes, mostly via car, to our properties that we need to overwater to maintain grass that we want to continually grow so we can just cut it down.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

The current model of everyone owning a detached home on a large lot of non-native plant life is environmentally disastrous. We're all taking excessively large commutes, mostly via car, to our properties that we need to overwater to maintain grass that we want to continually grow so we can just cut it down.

In before some version of the "but that's what the market wants" diatribe, as though there is a single person on Earth unaware that people enjoy living in large detached homes or that this fact has relevance at all.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

In before some version of the "but that's what the market wants" diatribe, as though there is a single person on Earth unaware that people enjoy living in large detached homes or that this fact has relevance at all.

What people want is pretty relevant to a discussion about public policy. If only because elected leaders need to take it into account.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

In before some version of the "but that's what the market wants" diatribe, as though there is a single person on Earth unaware that people enjoy living in large detached homes or that this fact has relevance at all.

In your opinion, what does the market want?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

In your opinion, what does the market want?

Mansions on giant plots of land with easy access to all amenities for under $300k.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Mansions on giant plots of land with easy access to all amenities for under $300k.

Why can't you be serious for a post or two a day?

[CliffFletcher]

Nvm

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Why can't you be serious for a post or two a day?

I am. I just make 500 of them so the 1-2 are easy to miss.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

In your opinion, what does the market want?

He was kidding, but I really would like a nice house on an acre of land walking distance to a CTrain station/restaurants. Surprisingly, there are a few of those around...

Sadly none belong to me for economic reasons.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

He was kidding, but I really would like a nice house on an acre of land walking distance to a CTrain station/restaurants. Surprisingly, there are a few of those around...

Sadly none belong to me for economic reasons.

But honestly (this is one of two), who wouldn’t?

I’d also want something with inexpensive upkeep or cheap labour to handle all that for me. Ideally, affordable on a single income.

What the market wants doesn’t always align with what’s available on the market. Such is life. How DO we manage?

[you&me]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But honestly (this is one of two), who wouldn’t?

I’d also want something with inexpensive upkeep or cheap labour to handle all that for me. Ideally, affordable on a single income.

What the market wants doesn’t always align with what’s available on the market. Such is life. How DO we manage?

But then isn't the development pattern we see reflective of the intersection of what the market wants and what the market can afford?

Like, I think most people would love a large home, large property, but close to amenities (like this)... But very few can afford that, so the compromise dictated by the general population is detached homes and power centres... Not ideal, but the best (most) people have available to them.

This is why I don't think blanket upzoning is the solution... It doesn't address what the market actually wants and overshoots what's already underutilized for redevelopment.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Why can't you be serious for a post or two a day?

Wait, almost your entire posting history is one liners and other attempts at humour? Except this past week where you've suddenly been serious and into it with posters in three separate topics in an agitated manner. It's weird.

[CliffFletcher]

The soaring values of SFHs in recent years coincides with Millennials hitting their prime child-rearing years. Canadians raising families have demonstrated that they’re willing to pay a massive premium, or move to far-flung suburbs and bedroom communities, to live in a detached house with a yard and nearby greenspace. This isn’t lost on developers.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

He was kidding, but I really would like a nice house on an acre of land walking distance to a CTrain station/restaurants. Surprisingly, there are a few of those around...

Sadly none belong to me for economic reasons.

Exactly. And once people can't have their ideal, they then compromise and choose between options within their budget.

No, I can't own a mansion that allows me to walk to downtown. That being said, I would prefer a townhouse with a short commute to downtown vs. a detached lot with an hour's commute in a distant suburb. I realize that not everyone would make that same choice. However, current zoning laws do not give people this choice. There are very few townhouses built, so those townhouses end up costing too much, which pushes people towards owning in the suburbs.

If you want to talk about free market, you have to remove the zoning restrictions which prevent the market from working. Obviously, some are good, we don't want skyscrapers in the middle of residential areas. However, there has to be a compromise there too. There's no good reason not to have medium density in core areas and along transportation routes.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by you&me

But then isn't the development pattern we see reflective of the intersection of what the market wants and what the market can afford?

Like, I think most people would love a large home, large property, but close to amenities (like this)... But very few can afford that, so the compromise dictated by the general population is detached homes and power centres... Not ideal, but the best (most) people have available to them.

This is why I don't think blanket upzoning is the solution... It doesn't address what the market actually wants and overshoots what's already underutilized for redevelopment.

Well, what people can afford changes over time, and where that intersection exists changes as well.

The compromise isn’t dictated by the general population alone, and the point being made here is that the current compromise is unsustainable. It’s becoming less affordable, more environmentally damaging, and more costly overall.

I myself would sacrifice a detached home for something central, it just wasn’t in the cards. There are not enough properties to meet demand, so prices have grown beyond an accessible level. Hell, my current property is absolutely not worth what I could sell it for, but I could list it tomorrow and have a buyer by Monday. That’s not because I live in the most in-demand property of all time. And if all people wanted was a detached home near a power centre, they could buy a new one for cheaper than they’re going to pay me for my 40+ year old home, they just have to live another 10-15 minutes further away.

More options increased affordability across the board, or at very least holds the line while the population increases.

If there is no demand for the properties that would be available with up-zoning, developers will not build them. So why are people worried about up-zoning?l not addressing what the market wants? At worst, it has no negative impact at all, at best, it has a positive impact.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The soaring values of SFHs in recent years coincides with Millennials hitting their prime child-rearing years. Canadians raising families have demonstrated that they’re willing to pay a massive premium, or move to far-flung suburbs and bedroom communities, to live in a detached house with a yard and nearby greenspace. This isn’t lost on developers.

I have a young kid. I'd prefer a 3 bedroom 1800-2000 sq ft townhouse with a shared communal playground, that my daughter could use and play with other kids in. Options for that are very limited and overpriced, due to lack of supply.

Saving an hour each day on my commute would also mean having an extra hour to spend with my family. My daughter goes to bed at 8:30, so that extra half hour in the evening is crucial.

Also, a lot of people buying into the detached lot dream, are only doing so because they've been told that's the ideal and they don't have many other options. I know many people who just bought a detached home and horribly regret it. They hate the maintenance and commuting. They don't really use the extra space for anything but storage of junk they don't want. Most of their neighbours are either maniacs they don't want to associate with or senior citizens, entombing themselves in their overpriced properties.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by blankall

I have a young kid. I'd prefer a 3 bedroom 1800-2000 sq ft townhouse with a shared communal playground, that my daughter could use and play with other kids in. Options for that are very limited and overpriced, due to lack of supply.

Saving an hour each day on my commute would also mean having an extra hour to spend with my family. My daughter goes to bed at 8:30, so that extra half hour in the evening is crucial.

Also, a lot of people buying into the detached lot dream, are only doing so because they've been told that's the ideal and they don't have many other options. I know many people who just bought a detached home and horribly regret it. They hate the maintenance and commuting. They don't really use the extra space for anything but storage of junk they don't want. Most of their neighbours are either maniacs they don't want to associate with or senior citizens, entombing themselves in their overpriced properties.

Good thing that only happens with SFHs though, because otherwise you're literally attached to those people.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Slava

Good thing that only happens with SFHs though, because otherwise you're literally attached to those people.

There's rarely a sense of community anywhere. A former advantage of the suburbs was the community, which requires large groups of young families. That doesn't happen anymore.

The townhouses do tend to attract younger families. The strata laws also act to police the community, which keeps louder and crazier people out. The strata fees also ensure it's only people who can hold down a job in the strata communities.

My current neighbour is over 70, has vicious fights with his spouse, and has a giant scrap metal pile in his backyard. That wouldn't happen in a strata lot.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by you&me

But then isn't the development pattern we see reflective of the intersection of what the market wants and what the market can afford?

Like, I think most people would love a large home, large property, but close to amenities (like this)... But very few can afford that, so the compromise dictated by the general population is detached homes and power centres... Not ideal, but the best (most) people have available to them.

This is why I don't think blanket upzoning is the solution... It doesn't address what the market actually wants and overshoots what's already underutilized for redevelopment.

If there's no market demand for townhouses then they won't get built even if all the land gets upzoned to allow for them. R-CG still allows for single family homes to be built - if that's the most economic use for lots that are up for redevelopment that's what'll get built.

I'm a long way to the right of Pepsifree on the political spectrum as normally defined, but I think this is a good policy. It's removing restrictions that are preventing the free market from providing housing for people.

If it turns out the market doesn't want that housing then nothing changes, and no-harm, no-foul. But that isn't what's likely to happen, imo.