N3 Condo (Zero Parking Condo in East Village)

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by McMurph

Why not in the long term? Do you believe that in 10 years people choosing to live in the core will want / need to own a car more than they do now? Given everything that is happening in inner city development in Calgary and everything that is likely to happen with car ownership / car share and transportation alternatives it seems that this sort of development is going to be a big part of the future.

Calgary is a boom bust town. Maybe in 50-100 years when Calgary runs short on land and density picks up and we get subway systems that go everywhere fast then we can start talking about this type of stuff. When Manhattan was booming over a hundred years ago, Calgary was a spec of dust with roaming wildlife. New condos will go up with parking all over downtown and people will have choices. Buy a condo with or without parking. It's not like condos with parking are going into short supply anytime soon. Remember, the only reason Calgary has had a housing boom in the short term is the huge influx of people and construction projects that just couldn't keep up with demand. But in the long run there is nothing stopping from projects to match or even exceed demand. The only shortage is land and Calgary has no shortage of that. You could fit another half million people in the beltline easy just by building a condo development on every empty lot. You wouldn't even have to demo anything.

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

Calgary is a boom bust town. Maybe in 50-100 years when Calgary runs short on land and density picks up and we get subway systems that go everywhere fast then we can start talking about this type of stuff. When Manhattan was booming over a hundred years ago, Calgary was a spec of dust with roaming wildlife. New condos will go up with parking all over downtown and people will have choices. Buy a condo with or without parking. It's not like condos with parking are going into short supply anytime soon. Remember, the only reason Calgary has had a housing boom in the short term is the huge influx of people and construction projects that just couldn't keep up with demand. But in the long run there is nothing stopping from projects to match or even exceed demand. The only shortage is land and Calgary has no shortage of that. You could fit another half million people in the beltline easy just by building a condo development on every empty lot. You wouldn't even have to demo anything.

But there will be people without cars. There already are, there will be more. There will be a premium paid for a parking space for sure but for many people now, and many more in the future, the affordability of a car-less life and parking-free condo will be an attraction. N3 type Units may have a smaller market of buyers and go for a lower price than the current standard, but I really can't see how that market and relative price is going to become even more restricted in the future.

I own a car and a house and am lucky to live in the inner-city. Even so, I use Car2Go and a bike for a whole lot of my city travel. If I were a 20 year-old moving to Calgary now and had to choose between owning a car and being able to afford to the inner city, I'd choose the inner-city. For me affordability and location are necessities. A car (and a place to park it) is a luxury.

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by McMurph

But there will be people without cars. There already are, there will be more. There will be a premium paid for a parking space for sure but for many people now, and many more in the future, the affordability of a car-less life and parking-free condo will be an attraction. N3 type Units may have a smaller market of buyers and go for a lower price than the current standard, but I really can't see how that market and relative price is going to become even more restricted in the future.

I own a car and a house and am lucky to live in the inner-city. Even so, I use Car2Go and a bike for a whole lot of my city travel. If I were a 20 year-old moving to Calgary now and had to choose between owning a car and being able to afford to the inner city, I'd choose the inner-city. For me affordability and location are necessities. A car (and a place to park it) is a luxury.

agreed. I just see a major correction in condo prices soon making a purchase at N3 not attractive compared to other listings. I have zero issue with the building going up, I just don't see the value in it on a personal level even if I never drove a car. If I didn't drive or owned a car I would still want a condo with a parking spot in downtown. Then I could rent it out which would cover my condo fees and the resale would be much better. When condo prices come down I think the value in N3 just won't be there like people think

[Tarsus]

Originally Posted by Tropics

I think that is "exactly" what PW said...

Umm, Yeah I realize that, and I was agreeing with him.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by sim

But let's say it were, why is that necessarily a bad thing? Why should driving and the car driver get to deviate from the course of what we'd like to believe are fundamental economic principles?

I would drink more wine, if it were cheaper. I would ski more often if it were cheaper, and I would head on over to the Cosmodrome and take a commercial space flight too, if it were affordable.

Because there is no escaping the bigger picture. This is the result of people and families becoming poorer and a generation paralyzed by economic insecurity. Nobody would pose the same question with regards to millennial's similar housing and employment plights and expect to be taken seriously.

I find it quite crazy that N3 has to jump through so many hoops, but then change is slow.

I don't have a problem with it, but when something is said to be "car free" it has to mean that. There should be no potential for residents imposing on street parking or scamming a permit on Kijiji. If something is going to be built without parking there can be zero tolerance for externalities from that.

Of course, you would have to smoking crack to park your car on the street anywhere near this place.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Regardless of if this becomes primarily rental or if being a rental building makes it a "slum" as you seem to be insinuiating, I have no problems with allow the market to decide whether a project like this is worth it, not an outdated policy that artificially raises the price of units by 30%.

There are rentals, and there are rentals, a condo building dominated by amateur landlords who are all in total agreement on not spending money on anything is never a good long-term situation.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by MasterG

If they don't sell or rent, that's the developers issue, not something the city should use as a decision to whether to allow it or not.

That is definitely a city issue as well. Developments that are misguided or mismanaged and that become largely vacant or become rental slums negatively affect not only themselves, but the areas around them. There are countless examples of this, but the area in Fort McMurray where the "Syncrude Towers" was built is an area right along the Snye and without a doubt the most prime area of Fort McMurray for upscale urban development. "BUT" those towers are there, they are not going anywhere, they are cheap and ugly and they are smack dab right in the middle of what would be Fort McMurray's version of Eau Claire/Prince's Island Park.

Poorly guided developments ultimately cause negative effects to the surrounding community and the city as a whole.

Originally Posted by MasterG

People who can't afford a 400K condo need a place to live too.

That is great, but we "already" have some studio condos for sale in Calgary that do not come with a parking spot. The problem is when the developer priced those units they seem to have forgot they did not include a parking spot when they were working out the $/sqf. We will see if the N3 developers actually price these with the lack of a downtown parking spot that would have a value of anywhere from $50,000-$70,000 clearly reduced from the price of other "like" units in similar areas. If you have a small 550 sqf 1-bedroom with parking in another East Village unit selling for $300,000 then N3 better be selling their similar 550sqf 1 bedroom unit without parking for somewhere in the $230,000-$250,000 range.

It is great to push for affordable housing for all of the Café Baristas we are going to need for the area, but studios without parking we have seen to date are absolutely not being priced anywhere close to a point of "affordable" for what you get, and the people those units are targeting is mostly wealthy people looking to pick up a few real estate investment properties. A $300,000 studio without parking is in no way targeting low income people, that is targeting a student, or a young bachelor who spends all of his non-working time each night at the pubs and clubs trying to hook up.

The "truly" low income people who work in retail and struggle to make it by ultimately end up in run down 70's walk-ups with 2 bedrooms because most of those people I know have spouses and families and a $600/sqf studio is absolutely not in their radar as an option. They actually need bedrooms, they need an actual functional kitchen to cook for a whole family in because eating out is definitely not an option for them.

Let's get off pretending this is a development for the less wealthy people out there. The actual lower class working people of this city is "not" going to be the main demographic this developer is targeting, not at all.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by McMurph

Why not in the long term? Do you believe that in 10 years people choosing to live in the core will want / need to own a car more than they do now? Given everything that is happening in inner city development in Calgary and everything that is likely to happen with car ownership / car share and transportation alternatives it seems that this sort of development is going to be a big part of the future.

Car "ownership" is becoming less and less of a real issue because of Car2Go.

What this means is that these people are not living "car free lifestyles", it means they are grabbing a short term "rental" car any time they need one to get somewhere when they do not have the time to take transit or they need to move a large amount of groceries or buy a new large item that cannot effectively be transported on transit.

Calgary is becoming better and better for a car free lifestyle, and Car2Go is a major reason for that. I could easily living in the core of Calgary without a car and be completely fine strictly because of Car2Go. I would not be living a car free lifestyle, I would simply be using temporary cars when I need them. TBPH Car2Go is ridiculous in the city, park almost anywhere in the core and not have to pay for parking, park at the stampede grounds in the "must have Stampede pass" parking areas and not have to pay anything, ect... The amount of money to save in parking when driving around the city would be enough to make a person really take notice. The only issue I could see is occasionally getting stranded somewhere without a close Car2Go available.

People were using them to park up by my place near Westbrook at night and I am pretty sure they were jumping in them in the morning and taking them downtown to work. That is a stellar deal. Get up in the morning, jump in your Car2Go and drive downtown, park the thing pretty near anywhere right close to your office, work the day away, search for a car close by in the evening, reserve it, and walk to it. Drive it right back home, and hope that no one gets up a little earlier then you tomorrow to go to work and steals it and forces you to walk to the train.

That is actually exactly what I will probably try to do if/when I get an office job in downtown Calgary. Parking rates in DT Calgary ensure I will never drive there in my own car and park for the day, Car2Go is simply an awesome option.

TBH Car2Go is an option that a lot of people will use not only over using their own personal vehicle, they will also see it as an alternative for Calgary Transit... I myself see it as a better option then taking the LRT.

As Car2Go gets the word out there and more people become aware of it's advantages a lot of people might stop using transit and instead switch to C2G. That is going to be an interesting debate when that happens as C2G is seen as a green positive urban mode of transportation by many of the same people who also support public transit. What happens when one starts to erode from the usership of the other? If C2G gets popular enough it could be that every 4th car you see on the road in the inner city of Calgary will eventually be a C2G, is there a point where C2G could become too much of a good thing?

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by Tropics

Let's get off pretending this is a development for the less wealthy people out there. The actual lower class working people of this city is "not" going to be the main demographic this developer is targeting, not at all.

Completely agree. N3 will be more affordable, which is something, and that maybe all that we can ask of developers. We will need regulatory approaches to create true affordability. The lack of city leadership in this regard is galling when we are developing entirely new neighbourhoods like Currie Barracks and the East Village, or pushing for more secondary suites in the city in general. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Edmonton has done something to address affordable housing in their approach to planning development of the city airport.

In response to the Globe and Mail article suggesting that Calgary could become the next Detroit, Rollin Stanley said the US city he was most afraid we were becoming was San Francisco. We're not anywhere near that level of dysfunctional unaffordability, but we're doing nothing to stop it from happening.

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by Tropics

...is there a point where C2G could become too much of a good thing?

With regard to commuting it already has. The daily shunting of cars from the periphery to the core is a problem for true car sharing (I generally have no chance of finding near my home in Bankview between 8AM and 3PM). I agree with you that it is probably draining CT ridership more than it is displacing private car use. And the clogging of parking spots downtown is an issue that is drawing notice. I love Car2Go and use it a lot. I don't like the amount that it is used for daily commutes to the core purely in avoidance of parking costs.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/traffi...r-share-policy

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by McMurph

With regard to commuting it already has. The daily shunting of cars from the periphery to the core is a problem for true car sharing (I generally have no chance of finding near my home in Bankview between 8AM and 3PM). I agree with you that it is probably draining CT ridership more than it is displacing private car use. And the clogging of parking spots downtown is an issue that is drawing notice. I love Car2Go and use it a lot. I don't like the amount that it is used for daily commutes to the core purely in avoidance of parking costs.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/traffi...r-share-policy

That is something to seriously think about on this particular thread because those Car2Go's are a BIG reason a development like this will be viable to many people. The more and more of these types of "no parking spots" developments occur the more the need for a service like Car2Go will rise in Calgary.

When it comes to marketing a place like N3 I would probably make a deal with Car2Go and have one of their little smart cars parked right there in the show room next to the little model of the building, small show suite mock-up showing the finishings, and the stands showing the floorplans of the units. The potential buyers would become vastly more open to the whole idea of "no parking spot" with the constant reminder of Car2Go and a car there sitting on the street waiting for you to use any time you want one. That type of synergy between a development like this and services like Car2Go WILL help sell these units, bigtime.

The issue then becomes, these units sell like hotcakes because of cost savings on the unit and the people's peace of mind at being able to use Car2Go for their automobile needs and dealing with the parking issue as Car2Go can parking almost anywhere for free.

N3 is a HUGE success and the people of SSP Calgary rejoice at the urban triumph, and 10 more developers race to join the party and create more urban inspired car free condo developments. Suddenly hundreds, perhaps thousands of additional units are under construction with zero parking, these developers are all going to push Car2Go as a viable alternative to car ownership, and the people who are buying agree it is a huge benefit and part of the reason they are buying a unit without parking. And this huge addition of Car2Go users causes the need for "way" more Car2Go vehicles on city streets to satisfy these new users who require the service now after buying into these units.

Where does that cycle end? I know Car2Go is quite in favour for the most part right now in Calgary, people are really starting to become aware of it and it is being used more and more. The city is at present pretty OK with it, but it is still relatively small compared to the overall number of cars on the road. What happens when you get these developments pushing higher need for Car2Go and they start flooding the streets with 10 times as many vehicles, 100 times as many vehicles? Does the city eventually say "stop, no more, this is becoming an issue!". When the city limits Car2Go what does that do to the 10 developments half built at that time? Those new developments following on the heels of N3 need those cars to be available to their potential buyers.

If Car2Go gets limited and it becomes a high demand item where the supply is limited by the city and the people who buy into these units can suddenly no longer count on it as a reliable alternative to car ownership THEN you end up in a really tricky spot with regards to these units and resale... The city could end up in a tough spot where they need to limit Car2Go but they end up with all these developments they allowed to get built with zero parking and a huge number of owners in those buildings now affected because they cannot rely on Car2Go anymore once the city limited it, and they also saw the value of their property drop in value hugely because any potential buyer of that unit without parking is now not going to simply be able to count on Car2Go to offset the lack of car ownership, which was not the case when the first people bought into the idea.

We could see this get very tricky in the next 10 years or so. I would be very cautious about these types of developments if I were the city, they need to be very aware of the things like Car2Go that are linked to this type of development and the issues the city might have with Car2Go in the future. I think people are simply thinking "oh they will just take the LRT and busses everywhere" but the reality is that most buyers are going to be making their decision based heavily on the fact that Car2Go exists and is at present a viable alternative to car ownership. For that place to maintain value and for them to maintain the lifestyle they envision Car2Go has to remain viable and the supply of cars has to remain sufficient to meet the demand not only now, but 10 years from now when that demand might be WAY higher because the city now has 10 or 20 "no parking" condos in the core.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by McMurph

In response to the Globe and Mail article suggesting that Calgary could become the next Detroit, Rollin Stanley said the US city he was most afraid we were becoming was San Francisco.

That would be practically impossible. The San Francisco as "bedroom community" to silicon valley phenomenon is without parallel here, militant tenants aren't exactly a malleable political constituency, much less the largest one. The same applies to the spectacularly over-the-top NIMBY and historical preservationist "Jack London puked on the floor of this building in 1913, it must be preserved for future generations!" constituency.

[Spring2008]

500k more people in 2 square km without demolishing anything? Yeah...

The Beltline will be over 25k residents once the u/c product is delivered to the market. Looking at the amount of multi-tower projects coming, should have no problem increasing by 1000+per year well into the future. Lots of amenities within the community and tones more south of it down 17th and Mission, and north of it in the commercial core. Can easily live car free here and EV once is comes together.

Supply will catch up to demand, but there will still be a segment, likely growing segment, that don't want to pay an additional 40 - 70k for an underground stall.

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

Calgary is a boom bust town. Maybe in 50-100 years when Calgary runs short on land and density picks up and we get subway systems that go everywhere fast then we can start talking about this type of stuff. When Manhattan was booming over a hundred years ago, Calgary was a spec of dust with roaming wildlife. New condos will go up with parking all over downtown and people will have choices. Buy a condo with or without parking. It's not like condos with parking are going into short supply anytime soon. Remember, the only reason Calgary has had a housing boom in the short term is the huge influx of people and construction projects that just couldn't keep up with demand. But in the long run there is nothing stopping from projects to match or even exceed demand. The only shortage is land and Calgary has no shortage of that. You could fit another half million people in the beltline easy just by building a condo development on every empty lot. You wouldn't even have to demo anything.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by McMurph

With regard to commuting it already has. The daily shunting of cars from the periphery to the core is a problem for true car sharing (I generally have no chance of finding near my home in Bankview between 8AM and 3PM). I agree with you that it is probably draining CT ridership more than it is displacing private car use. And the clogging of parking spots downtown is an issue that is drawing notice. I love Car2Go and use it a lot. I don't like the amount that it is used for daily commutes to the core purely in avoidance of parking costs.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/traffi...r-share-policy

I look at Car2Go as a transitional technology. It fills the gap for people who don't want to own a car but still feel they need one and don't want an entirely car-free lifestyle. I know 4 people (five including me) that have sold their only car with Car2Go being at least part of the decision.

I agree there is an issue with the clustering, however limiting car2go flexibility isn't the answer. There is some wishy-washy feelings dictating this move, largely driven by complaints that car2gos are taking up all the spaces from drivers. No one seems to complain about private cars or trucks that would be taking up those spaces much less efficiently due to their relative size and significantly lower utilization rate compared to a Car2Go shared by many people each day. Car2Go is just an identifiable minority and is being discriminated against because they are doing exactly what the people complaining about them are wanting to do.

It's also important to remember Car2Go does pay for the parking at the regular rates as any other car would. The costs are baked into the user fees.

So while it is sometimes tough to get a Car2Go at certain times of the day, restricting Car2Gos to park downtown for commuting would reduce the accessibility and availability of parking supply downtown as larger, less efficient, single-user private vehicles replace them. It would be a big step backwards.

[lorenavedon]

has anyone looked into the price? 575 largest unit. 350k max price = $608/sqft

SIX HUNDRED for a place without parking. Even at the top floor, Nope.

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

has anyone looked into the price? 575 largest unit. 350k max price = $608/sqft

SIX HUNDRED for a place without parking. Even at the top floor, Nope.

Location, location, location.

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Location, location, location.

location doesn't mean infinite pricing. If I can get into Vogue, Verve, Park Point, Smith, Mark on 10th, Kensington, Lido etc for the same price they have just as good of a location. Everything has a limit. Justifying insane prices with "location" only goes so far. Oh, and all those places come with parking.

[sync]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

location doesn't mean infinite pricing. If I can get into Vogue, Verve, Park Point, Smith, Mark on 10th, Kensington, Lido etc for the same price they have just as good of a location. Everything has a limit. Justifying insane prices with "location" only goes so far. Oh, and all those places come with parking.

but the only real justification needed is someone willing to pay that price.

and there are people out there who will.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

location doesn't mean infinite pricing. If I can get into Vogue, Verve, Park Point, Smith, Mark on 10th, Kensington, Lido etc for the same price they have just as good of a location. Everything has a limit. Justifying insane prices with "location" only goes so far. Oh, and all those places come with parking.

If people will pay for those units then I guess the prices aren't insane.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

location doesn't mean infinite pricing. If I can get into Vogue, Verve, Park Point, Smith, Mark on 10th, Kensington, Lido etc for the same price they have just as good of a location. Everything has a limit. Justifying insane prices with "location" only goes so far. Oh, and all those places come with parking.

You aren't buying nuts at Costco by the kilogram. The limiting factor to affordability is not how good or bad deal it is by square-foot, but overall cost. This is one of the only new-built buildings anywhere in the inner city (or large swaths of the greater city for that matter) that you can get a place - albeit small ones - for 200K-350K. Period.

Is it a good deal? Completely subjective. It depends how much you like nuts I guess.