Calgary Construction XXVI

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

I was agreeing with you but I didn’t word my answer very well. Those who want condos and density can build them in a shit part of town where the land isnt good for much else.

Agree 100%. Makes absolute sense. The condos and density should be built in a shit part of town where the land isn't good and where nobody wants to live.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by Suburgatory

Agree 100%. Makes absolute sense. The condos and density should be built in a shit part of town where the land isn't good and where nobody wants to live.

Not sure if you’re trying to be sarcastic again, but yes that does make sense 100%. It’s always been this way in the law of real estate, the nicest homes which are large single-family homes are always built in the nicest part of the city. The high density stuff is usually built in the less desirable areas.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

Not sure if you’re trying to be sarcastic again, but yes that does make sense 100%. It’s always been this way in the law of real estate, the nicest homes which are large single-family homes are always built in the nicest part of the city. The high density stuff is usually built in the less desirable areas.

Define less desirable. No developer is going to build a 150m building packed with units in an area no one wants to live. The numbers speak for themselves, if the Beltline wasn't desirable, there would be no one living there... yet they do, making your comment wrong.

The reason nice single family homes are built in the 'nice' areas is zoning and NIMBYism, not fundamental economic theory. If a condo developer was given the opportunity to build condos in these places they'd jump at it.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Define less desirable. No developer is going to build a 150m building packed with units in an area no one wants to live. The numbers speak for themselves, if the Beltline wasn't desirable, there would be no one living there... yet they do, making your comment wrong.

The reason nice single family homes are built in the 'nice' areas is zoning and NIMBYism, not fundamental economic theory. If a condo developer was given the opportunity to build condos in these places they'd jump at it.

The Beltline isn't the nicest part of the city, Burnsland Cemetery is. People are literally dying to get in there.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Define less desirable. No developer is going to build a 150m building packed with units in an area no one wants to live. The numbers speak for themselves, if the Beltline wasn't desirable, there would be no one living there... yet they do, making your comment wrong.

The reason nice single family homes are built in the 'nice' areas is zoning and NIMBYism, not fundamental economic theory. If a condo developer was given the opportunity to build condos in these places they'd jump at it.

Crescent Heights is a very old part of Calgary where the properties were spoken for long before modern developers came on the scene. Even if the city changed the zoning for the area what developer is rich enough to buy the current property owners out? Based on the lot prices Suburbia mentioned for the new mansion it would require a developer with very deep pockets. If one exists wouldn't the condos they built end up being very expensive to buy? I just don't see Crescent Heights ever being high density affordable housing. It's much better to build high density in new areas where the land is much cheaper. Isn't that what is happening now?

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Crescent Heights is a very old part of Calgary where the properties were spoken for long before modern developers came on the scene. Even if the city changed the zoning for the area what developer is rich enough to buy the current property owners out? Based on the lot prices Suburbia mentioned for the new mansion it would require a developer with very deep pockets. If one exists wouldn't the condos they built end up being very expensive to buy? I just don't see Crescent Heights ever being high density affordable housing. It's much better to build high density in new areas where the land is much cheaper. Isn't that what is happening now?

Pretty much, if Crescent Road did end up with condos on it they would probably be some of the most expensive apartments in the city.

[DizzyEdge]

Never say never to condos there though I suppose. 4th avenue downtown was the original 'rich area' and only the Prince house survived by being moved to Heritage Park. Then 13th avenue was the next wealthy street and only the Lougheed house and a few high end (at the time) apartments remain, so one day the same might come to Crescent Road.

[Bad Grizzly]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Define less desirable. No developer is going to build a 150m building packed with units in an area no one wants to live. The numbers speak for themselves, if the Beltline wasn't desirable, there would be no one living there... yet they do, making your comment wrong.

The reason nice single family homes are built in the 'nice' areas is zoning and NIMBYism, not fundamental economic theory. If a condo developer was given the opportunity to build condos in these places they'd jump at it.

The Beltline is only desirable to those low on cash. It’s mostly a low rent district. That’s why a lot of the dregs of the city end up there.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

The Beltline is only desirable to those low on cash. It’s mostly a low rent district. That’s why a lot of the dregs of the city end up there.

I think there is merit in the above. The Beltline must have the highest number of rental units in the city by far! Firstly there are the large rental complexes, but more so, it is all the condos owned by investors that are consistently in the rental cycle. There are also the rooming houses.

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by Bad Grizzly

The Beltline is only desirable to those low on cash. It’s mostly a low rent district. That’s why a lot of the dregs of the city end up there.

Originally Posted by suburbia

I think there is merit in the above. The Beltline must have the highest number of rental units in the city by far! Firstly there are the large rental complexes, but more so, it is all the condos owned by investors that are consistently in the rental cycle. There are also the rooming houses.

e
Exactly what I was getting at. Most of the time high density is done in less desirable areas. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that land in desirable areas is going to be too expensive for condos and rental units. That’s why all the high density projects are in the Beltline and East Village.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

e
Exactly what I was getting at. Most of the time high density is done in less desirable areas. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that land in desirable areas is going to be too expensive for condos and rental units. That’s why all the high density projects are in the Beltline and East Village.

You might be a rocket scientist, but you're no economist it appears. If land is expensive, you put more units in to make the numbers work - land downtown or in the Beltline isn't cheap either. No, a tower in Crescent Heights would not be a commie block but something more akin to the Concord development, but if people will pay to put one unit on a lot up there, then there would definitely be a business case to put multiple unit developments down.

So why are there no condo towers up there? Simple, zoning and NIMBYs. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You might be a rocket scientist, but you're no economist it appears. If land is expensive, you put more units in to make the numbers work - land downtown or in the Beltline isn't cheap either. No, a tower in Crescent Heights would not be a commie block but something more akin to the Concord development, but if people will pay to put one unit on a lot up there, then there would definitely be a business case to put multiple unit developments down.

So why are there no condo towers up there? Simple, zoning and NIMBYs. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

The lots in that neighborhood are mega expensive. To put in massive towers developers would pretty well have to buy up the entire area which would be crazy expensive. There's no need for density in that area anyway. The Beltline has tons of condos and room for a lot more. The city should get rid of their height restrictions and allow developers to build taller in that area if it helps to make projects more economical. I'd love to see a couple of super tall skinnies be built.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

The lots in that neighborhood are mega expensive. To put in massive towers developers would pretty well have to buy up the entire area which would be crazy expensive. There's no need for density in that area anyway. The Beltline has tons of condos and room for a lot more. The city should get rid of their height restrictions and allow developers to build taller in that area if it helps to make projects more economical. I'd love to see a couple of super tall skinnies be built.

I agree, not much need to open that area up for density, I don't care much either way. I just don't want illegitimate economic theory being bandied around and the misuse of the English language.

Those two lots apparently cost $5M, I'm sure a developer wouldn't have to be too creative to make money off that with a multi unit development, although it would likely be easier with more lots as you say.

[Suburgatory]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

e
Exactly what I was getting at. Most of the time high density is done in less desirable areas. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that land in desirable areas is going to be too expensive for condos and rental units. That’s why all the high density projects are in the Beltline and East Village.

You might wish to know that Beltline land acquired for high density condos goes for 5+ million dollars.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

Exactly what I was getting at. Most of the time high density is done in less desirable areas. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that land in desirable areas is going to be too expensive for condos and rental units. That’s why all the high density projects are in the Beltline and East Village.

I don't actually think that is how it works. What actually makes for an area that is not as much desirable other than the usual "I don't have a soccer field, hockey rink, public library, school" type stuff is if the people living in an area feel no buy in to keep it up. Certain sub-segments of renters fit that category. So the Beltline's land was not "bad" rather it was "exceptional" but people just don't connect personally with it and treat it like crap.

[DizzyEdge]

I'm wondering if there's any stats on per-community average rents. I had a gut feeling that the Beltline would actually have the highest rents, but the reality is probably a mix of new construction high rents with 1950's walkups with lower rent, so I'm not sure where the final average would end up.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'm wondering if there's any stats on per-community average rents. I had a gut feeling that the Beltline would actually have the highest rents, but the reality is probably a mix of new construction high rents with 1950's walkups with lower rent, so I'm not sure where the final average would end up.

I haven't seen anything like that, but as you suggest, the details will be lost in the averages. Perhaps if the data were normalized, EG comparing all 2bd/2bth 800-1000sf apartment rentals.

[Daemon]

Beautiful sunny day this afternoon Nothing is happening in forum so I decided to take photos.

[Daemon]

[Daemon]

Panoramo of beautiful day