Home builder vs nenshi goes another round

[frozenrice]

Originally posted by Xtrema


The......... removal of subsidies will hurt builders like Shane Homes. There is no doubt about that.

Shane Home and the likes are in no position to build 15-20 stories high rise apartments. These are much riskier ventures due to higher capitals needed to get these project started.

What are these subsidies that you speak of? I'd like to know more about them.....

As far as high rise developments, home builders are just that- home builders not high-rise developers. Two totally different markets, marketing and construction wise.

It's like your average Ford or GM dealer tying to sell buses. Sure they're all forms of transportation, but would you walk into a normal car dealership to buy a touring bus?

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by suntan

Shane Homes will not be "hurt". They'll be just fine.

They won't. It's about access to the market. When Sprawl was unchecked, they have access to 80% of the market. As City policy til more towards densification, the access will drop.

[busdepot]

Originally posted by frozenrice


What are these subsidies that you speak of? I'd like to know more about them.....

As far as high rise developments, home builders are just that- home builders not high-rise developers. Two totally different markets, marketing and construction wise.

It's like your average Ford or GM dealer tying to sell buses. Sure they're all forms of transportation, but would you walk into a normal car dealership to buy a touring bus?

Same people who think oil companies need to invest in alternative energies.

[busdepot]

Originally posted by Xtrema


They won't. It's about access to the market. When Sprawl was unchecked, they have access to 80% of the market. As City policy til more towards densification, the access will drop.

I think Calgary's sprawl is not just being given to the market with no thought behind it. What Calgary is experiencing is not sprawl. It's called growth. Calgary's population is sky rocketing, and with that comes more new homes. Houston has sprawl. Toronto has sprawl. I flew over Regina this weekend, and even there's new homes being built on the outskirts. Calgary's footprint is growing, and yes, there needs to be some checks and controls on it. I don't think any one would argue the contrary.

But because infrastructure isn't keeping up with demand for services like transit and ring roads etc, that's not the home builders fault or problem really. That's the problem of the City and the Province. If you don't want Calgary's footprint to grow, you should also be prepared to advocate for housing prices to go up substantially to stop that footprint from growing.

[rage2]

Originally posted by suntan
What council says and what they do are two different things.

Oh look, another massive development!

http://www.calgary.ca/getinvolved/Pa...ture-Plan.aspx

haha you didn't even read the ASP did you? Keystone Hills is the new condos in the suburbs plan that the city approved to attempt to curb urban sprawl. It's going to be condo city over there. That's what the developers like Wenzel are bitching about.

I'm quite excited to see how this project turns out, if there is an actual demand for high density housing in the middle of nowhere (I don't believe there will be).

[ercchry]

Originally posted by busdepot

If you don't want Calgary's footprint to grow, you should also be prepared to advocate for housing prices to go up substantially to stop that footprint from growing.

im okay with that

here is the thing though when comparing calgary to other areas

areas like van and t.o are greater :insert city: area concepts... where you have amenities and business areas that are not just in the downtown core. multiple cities that just blend together.

toronto is the best example... but i dont see calgary ever being like that since the formula is giant bigbox stores+sprawling detached houses mixed with a sprinkle of multi-res that creates a horrible commuter nightmare since there are no local to the area business centres... sure we we have a few "business parks" but since they are so new a lot of people are not living near them that have found their offices moved to them.... which is actually just making rush hour worse

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by rage2
I'm quite excited to see how this project turns out, if there is an actual demand for high density housing in the middle of nowhere (I don't believe there will be).

After Beacon and Nolan barely got by, I don't know how well that will sell as well. But city policy is artificially inflating the market. So $300K apartments/condos will soon be the starting point for ownership. This may drive people inward to older 20-30 year old neighborhoods.

Originally posted by busdepot
But because infrastructure isn't keeping up with demand for services like transit and ring roads etc, that's not the home builders fault or problem really. That's the problem of the City and the Province. If you don't want Calgary's footprint to grow, you should also be prepared to advocate for housing prices to go up substantially to stop that footprint from growing.

Then why should the City subsidize itself a future problem? Yes, house prices should go up all over the board. That's the only way to justify apartments and densification.

If you want cheap, big houses, Cochrane, Airdrie are your choices. And if you read the stats on houses sold in the $600K-$1.5M range, Calgary is still way too affordable.

Originally posted by frozenrice


What are these subsidies that you speak of? I'd like to know more about them.....

The ones that Manning center say should be abolished? And taxes should be raised to cover the services? And nothing should be subsidized, new or redevleopments?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...380/story.html

[busdepot]

Originally posted by ercchry


im okay with that

here is the thing though when comparing calgary to other areas

areas like van and t.o are greater :insert city: area concepts... where you have amenities and business areas that are not just in the downtown core. multiple cities that just blend together.

toronto is the best example... but i dont see calgary ever being like that since the formula is giant bigbox stores+sprawling detached houses mixed with a sprinkle of multi-res that creates a horrible commuter nightmare since there are no local to the area business centres... sure we we have a few "business parks" but since they are so new a lot of people are not living near them that have found their offices moved to them.... which is actually just making rush hour worse

You're right. You can't really compare any city to one another. Toronto area also has this tiny little pond beside it which forces development one direction. Calgary will never be like GTA. Calgary is only one actual incorporated City too. The city isn't prepared to handle business parks outside of downtown. Once IOL moves to Quarry Park, the deep south is even more fucked. 18th ST already sucks balls in the morning. So you're right on that for sure.

I'm perfectly fine with real estate going up too. That means more money when its selling time. But my issue is that people complain about housing prices being too high or climbing too fast, but then say we need to stop the cities outward expansion, which I suspect would comprise a good amount of Nenshi's voter support.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by busdepot
I'm perfectly fine with real estate going up too. That means more money when its selling time. But my issue is that people complain about housing prices being too high or climbing too fast, but then say we need to stop the cities outward expansion, which I suspect would comprise a good amount of Nenshi's voter support.

Nenshi supportors are supposed to buy $400K 600sqft lofts @ East Village.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Nenshi supportors are supposed to buy $400K 600sqft lofts @ East Village.

i really hope so... actually thats what i am banking on with my latest purchase

[busdepot]

Originally posted by Xtrema


After Beacon and Nolan barely got by, I don't know how well that will sell as well. But city policy is artificially inflating the market. So $300K apartments/condos will soon be the starting point for ownership. This may drive people inward to older 20-30 year old neighborhoods.

Yes, you're driving people to certain areas. Sure, too bad there's already people there. The problem right now is supply. That's why a 2bed appartment in the belt line costs $400k+. That's why a shitty house in Acadia costs $450k+.

Originally posted by Xtrema


Then why should the City subsidize itself a future problem? Yes, house prices should go up all over the board. That's the only way to justify apartments.

If you want cheap, big houses, Cochrane, Airdrie are your choices.

Because that's what your property taxes and income taxes to the Province are for. There are many better ways to generate revenues to pay for the increased development and growth. Trying to cut off the development all together is the wrong one.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by busdepot
Trying to cut off the development all together is the wrong one.

It's not a cut off, it's managed.

Please go play SimCity to see why density is needed.

And you can't get people into dense area until anything with a backyard is out of reach for the average buyers.

[busdepot]

Originally posted by Xtrema


It's not a cut off, it's managed.

Please go play SimCity.

I have played SimCity. My nuclear reactors kept melting down and there was tornadoes.

Sure, we have disagreeing opinions on how to manage the cities development. I'm ok for that, but to imply that its not currently managed is naive. While I think the city has done a piss poor job of keeping up with the developments they approve, I don't they were wrong to approve it. They just need to keep their end of the bargain, as does the province with their come to Alberta to work initiatives.

But because it's starting to cause a real problem for people who live here, why does that make it ok for Nenshi to scapegoat the developers and home-builders and make them sound like a white-collar Los Zetas cartel who are just out to make a dollar a fuck up the city and leave?

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by busdepot
Sure, we have disagreeing opinions on how to manage the cities development. I'm ok for that, but to imply that its not currently managed is naive. While I think the city has done a piss poor job of keeping up with the developments they approve, I don't they were wrong to approve it. They just need to keep their end of the bargain, as does the province with their come to Alberta to work initiatives.

I agree that it was poorly managed as in nobody was thinking of the consequences down the road when they are approved. Now you can't really provide the services without raising taxes. Sin of the fathers.

That's why the restriction now.

Anything with infrastructure, effect of change won't be felt til a decade later. We are just feeling effect of overdevelopment during the Bronco era.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by busdepot


I have played SimCity. My nuclear reactors kept melting down and there was tornadoes.

Sure, we have disagreeing opinions on how to manage the cities development. I'm ok for that, but to imply that its not currently managed is naive. While I think the city has done a piss poor job of keeping up with the developments they approve, I don't they were wrong to approve it. They just need to keep their end of the bargain, as does the province with their come to Alberta to work initiatives.

But because it's starting to cause a real problem for people who live here, why does that make it ok for Nenshi to scapegoat the developers and home-builders and make them sound like a white-collar Los Zetas cartel who are just out to make a dollar a fuck up the city and leave?

oh yeah, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

[dirtsniffer]

Originally posted by ercchry


i really hope so... actually thats what i am banking on with my latest purchase

Why do you need to talk about this in every single post you make?

We get it, you're awesome.

[ercchry]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer


Why do you need to talk about this in every single post you make?

We get it, you're awesome.

every post? or only when its relevant? either way, you are the master of your own beyond. hit the ignore button

[bspot]

Since we're getting into the sprawl argument, it seems like both sides try drag each other down with rhetoric and there isn't much for actual facts going around.

What I'd like to see is an example of the life cycle of a Calgary neighborhood.


Take one of the older low density suburbs. Maybe some of the 50s/60s stuff.


How often do the roads need to be repaved?

What does it cost?

How often do the sidewalks need to be replaced?

What does it cost?

How often does sewer/water infrastructure need maintenance?

What does it cost?

Do the same for police/fire/parks.

Add all those up for the life of the community so far. Divide by years in existence.

How does the cost per year line up with property taxes? If it's more than property taxes, well our property tax system, which most will already agree is arbitrary at best, is now in even worse shape than we thought.

These costs need to be addressed either in purchase price or in taxation. I prefer taxation, as it's not a one time source of income.

If places are paying less in taxes then they cost to maintain, that isn't "fair", in my opinion. Do this for all neighborhoods in the city, map it out, see what a tax structure should look like. If condos use less resources compared to somone on a 50 foot loot, then let them pay less. (I'm on a 50' lot, and I agree it's not fair my neighbours with half as much frontage pay the same or in some cases more than me).

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by bspot
If places are paying less in taxes then they cost to maintain, that isn't "fair", in my opinion. Do this for all neighborhoods in the city, map it out, see what a tax structure should look like. If condos use less resources compared to somone on a 50 foot loot, then let them pay less. (I'm on a 50' lot, and I agree it's not fair my neighbours with half as much frontage pay the same or in some cases more than me).

It's all about assessment and market value. Your 1000 sqft on 50' worth at least 30% less than your neighbor's redeveloped 2000 sqft on 25'. (Lot's assumption here).

That's why I think Manning's report is fair.

Don't bother figuring out who subsidizes who. If the services cost X, charges X.

[speedog]

Originally posted by rage2
haha you didn't even read the ASP did you? Keystone Hills is the new condos in the suburbs plan that the city approved to attempt to curb urban sprawl. It's going to be condo city over there. That's what the developers like Wenzel are bitching about.

I'm quite excited to see how this project turns out, if there is an actual demand for high density housing in the middle of nowhere (I don't believe there will be).

From the city's Keystone Hills ASP...

A minimum of 30 per cent of the housing units within each
Neighbourhood should be non-single-detached housing units

This still leaves a lot of room for single detached housing although the plan appears to be leaning to a high density non-single-detached housing environment - will be interesting to see how this all builds out.