Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I would argue that if Mount Royal, or portions of it are preserved as-is, it might be reasonable for heritage reasons, but not for any other such as the wealth of the residents.

But is not money the ultimate reason? If someone could afford it, and wanted to, could they not buy several lots in Mount Royal and propose to knock the houses down and put up a condo project? (assuming they could get the land use approval).

The reason that scenario doesn't happen is precisely because of the wealth of the residents. The people currently living there do not feel that the land is of high enough value to them at the moment to increase the density. Someone living in Crescent Heights for example though, does think their land is of enough value to justify getting rid of their house and having it turned into condos.

We can't force any of these existing inner city neighbourhoods to densify. It is not like we can give them eviction notices and then force a developer to build a condo on their lot. It happens because the market allows it to happen.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

But is not money the ultimate reason? If someone could afford it, and wanted to, could they not buy several lots in Mount Royal and propose to knock the houses down and put up a condo project? (assuming they could get the land use approval).

The reason that scenario doesn't happen is precisely because of the wealth of the residents. The people currently living there do not feel that the land is of high enough value to them at the moment to increase the density. Someone living in Crescent Heights for example though, does think their land is of enough value to justify getting rid of their house and having it turned into condos.

We can't force any of these existing inner city neighbourhoods to densify. It is not like we can give them eviction notices and then force a developer to build a condo on their lot. It happens because the market allows it to happen.

There is no way somebody could get the land use to build multifamily in Mount Royal. The community would be up in arms, the councillor would have enormous pressure to oppose the redesignation.

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by fusili

There is no way somebody could get the land use to build multifamily in Mount Royal. The community would be up in arms, the councillor would have enormous pressure to oppose the redesignation.

Lower Mount Royal's apartment buildings might slowly spread south but yeah, good luck putting an apartment building up in most of the community whether you own the land or not.

[polishavenger]

The city can set the stage for a neighbourhood to densify by either being pro-active and upzoning areas where density should be encouraged, or it can respond to market demands and upzone areas where land values indicate higher density is likely to occur naturally. I believe the Mission area was at one point upzoned to allow for greater density, as was the beltine at some point. Land values will generally providing some people with the incentive to sell to developers. There are always hold outs, as evidenced by all the single family homes wedged in between high rises in the beltline, because unless the city is expropriating land, no one can force you to sell.

The reason Mount Royal is not upzoning, is precisely because the owners of those lots dont care how much the land is worth, the prestige of single family ownership in that area is more valuable, and therefore prevent densification through zoning, where density would naturally occur otherwise.

Originally Posted by MichaelS

But is not money the ultimate reason? If someone could afford it, and wanted to, could they not buy several lots in Mount Royal and propose to knock the houses down and put up a condo project? (assuming they could get the land use approval).

The reason that scenario doesn't happen is precisely because of the wealth of the residents. The people currently living there do not feel that the land is of high enough value to them at the moment to increase the density. Someone living in Crescent Heights for example though, does think their land is of enough value to justify getting rid of their house and having it turned into condos.

We can't force any of these existing inner city neighbourhoods to densify. It is not like we can give them eviction notices and then force a developer to build a condo on their lot. It happens because the market allows it to happen.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

The city can set the stage for a neighbourhood to densify by either being pro-active and upzoning areas where density should be encouraged, or it can respond to market demands and upzone areas where land values indicate higher density is likely to occur naturally. I believe the Mission area was at one point upzoned to allow for greater density, as was the beltine at some point. Land values will generally providing some people with the incentive to sell to developers. There are always hold outs, as evidenced by all the single family homes wedged in between high rises in the beltline, because unless the city is expropriating land, no one can force you to sell.

The reason Mount Royal is not upzoning, is precisely because the owners of those lots dont care how much the land is worth, the prestige of single family ownership in that area is more valuable, and therefore prevent densification through zoning, where density would naturally occur otherwise.

"The City" does not upzone land. All land use redesignations and area plans are approved directly through Council.

The Beltline was "upzoned" because of community advocacy, not because of the City (the city planners were actually resistent to the increase in density). In many cases, houses are left in the Beltline not necessarily because of "hold outs" but because of site restrictions, incentives not to demolish existing homes (i.e. you don't need a land use change to put an office in a pre 1950 house in the Beltline- this is an incentive to keep the houses) or just no market for high density housing at that particular time and location.

I don't mean to nitpick, and I agree with your statement generally, I just wanted to clear up the process of how things work.

[MichaelS]

I think we are all kind of in agreement. I am not saying it wouldn't be very difficult to get upzoned land in Mount Royal, but with enough money (ie buy out all the naysayers) it could happen. When land values get so hight that the current owners feel it is worth it to upzone, it will happen. For that particular neighbourhood, it may be a century, maybe more. But the thing that will make it happen, or preserve it, is money (or land value in a different term).

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

I think we are all kind of in agreement. I am not saying it wouldn't be very difficult to get upzoned land in Mount Royal, but with enough money (ie buy out all the naysayers) it could happen. When land values get so hight that the current owners feel it is worth it to upzone, it will happen. For that particular neighbourhood, it may be a century, maybe more. But the thing that will make it happen, or preserve it, is money (or land value in a different term).

The fundamental problem is that those properties in Mount Royal are all really expensive. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a developer to buy them out, rent out the homes in the meantime and wait decades until they can get the area plan changed for redevelopment. It is a money loser through and through. The problem is that the current owners see upzoning as a detriment to their land value. And they are probably right.

[DizzyEdge]

What I meant was that Mt Royal shouldn't be exempt because the owners are rich. That said, those owners will probably make *sure* it stays exempt because of the power their wealth gives them.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by fusili

The fundamental problem is that those properties in Mount Royal are all really expensive. It doesn't make a lot of sense for a developer to buy them out, rent out the homes in the meantime and wait decades until they can get the area plan changed for redevelopment. It is a money loser through and through. The problem is that the current owners see upzoning as a detriment to their land value. And they are probably right.

And that's my whole point. Mount Royal isn't exempt by any means, the current land owners just simply value the way it is now too much for them to want to change.

Let's jump forward 200 years. Calgary's population is 10 million (no idea if that is the right increase for that amount of time, but work with me here). The CBD and Beltline are teaming with 50 storey towers, and 100's of thousands of people (if not millions). Our trains are pretty full, and our traffic is brutal coming in from the edge of town. People up in those towers look down and see Mount Royal, with their large lots and low density. They think, I bet a lot more people would like to live in that location being so close to the core, enough that I could buy a few of those lots, go through all the process needed, and sell condos there and still make money. Hence the value of the land drives the change.

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by suburb

I haven't seen the numbers that show an increase to the per-capita rider rate in the inner city. I'm assuming you do have this given your statement above - could you share?

Generally speaking, creating proper nodes outside of downtown does not necessarily increase the per-capita bus ridership numbers all that much the way the transit network is right now, because most people do not work downtown. Additionally, feeder bus ridership is not a good measure as many people don't take feeder buses to get to the transit backbone - in cases when indeed they do need to come to the core or points in between.

In general, to split out bus ridership based on home address is extremely difficult. If someone takes an express bus and then transfers to a different bus closer to DT, the numbers won't tell you that the second leg was completed by someone who lives 12km from the core. Given this reality, I suspect your assumptions about increased per capita ridership for inner city to be based on dubious analysis - but I can't conclude till you have presented your conclusive (or not) data.

But that is why feeder buses are struggling, not that I am against Park&Ride. As for me, just because I work downtown, inner city living makes sense when having kids--there..i am one of the minorities that work downtown, and I am sure a whole bunch of others who work downtown would find inner city neighbourhoods desirable. I thought it makes logical sense.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

And that's my whole point. Mount Royal isn't exempt by any means, the current land owners just simply value the way it is now too much for them to want to change.

Let's jump forward 200 years. Calgary's population is 10 million (no idea if that is the right increase for that amount of time, but work with me here). The CBD and Beltline are teaming with 50 storey towers, and 100's of thousands of people (if not millions). Our trains are pretty full, and our traffic is brutal coming in from the edge of town. People up in those towers look down and see Mount Royal, with their large lots and low density. They think, I bet a lot more people would like to live in that location being so close to the core, enough that I could buy a few of those lots, go through all the process needed, and sell condos there and still make money. Hence the value of the land drives the change.

The poor will have eaten the rich way before this happens.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

And that's my whole point. Mount Royal isn't exempt by any means, the current land owners just simply value the way it is now too much for them to want to change.

Let's jump forward 200 years. Calgary's population is 10 million (no idea if that is the right increase for that amount of time, but work with me here). The CBD and Beltline are teaming with 50 storey towers, and 100's of thousands of people (if not millions). Our trains are pretty full, and our traffic is brutal coming in from the edge of town. People up in those towers look down and see Mount Royal, with their large lots and low density. They think, I bet a lot more people would like to live in that location being so close to the core, enough that I could buy a few of those lots, go through all the process needed, and sell condos there and still make money. Hence the value of the land drives the change.

That could happen, but even (especially?) then, the residents of Mount Royal would place an even higher value on their properties that could still obstruct development. There are still many inner-city, single family estates in many very large urban areas... Even Manhattan has mansions.

It just seems that Mount Royal is being targeted here because the residents are all wealthy. There is absolutely no shortage of developable/infill inner-city land in Calgary, so I guess I don't understand the focus here. If it was the last patch of single family homes within 10kms of DT, sure. But there is so much available infill land that I don't see why we need to worry about Mount Royal just yet... Other than the general resentment of wealth that seems to permeate this entire forum

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Me&You

That could happen, but even (especially?) then, the residents of Mount Royal would place an even higher value on their properties that could still obstruct development. There are still many inner-city, single family estates in many very large urban areas... Even Manhattan has mansions.

It just seems that Mount Royal is being targeted here because the residents are all wealthy. There is absolutely no shortage of developable/infill inner-city land in Calgary, so I guess I don't understand the focus here. If it was the last patch of single family homes within 10kms of DT, sure. But there is so much available infill land that I don't see why we need to worry about Mount Royal just yet... Other than the general resentment of wealth that seems to permeate this entire forum

I have no resentment to Mount Royal. I was just trying to point out that it is exactly the residents' wealth that is preserving Mount Royal as it is, when Dizzyedge said he thought that was unreasonable.

[polishavenger]

My understanding is that it happens both ways. The Beltline community association was instrumental in promoting the latest round of condo construction (I was at some of the meetings just when the building boom was getting started), however Im not sure what the history is of the area from the days when the first high rise apartments were built. I also remember hearing that the city pro-actively worked with the mission community to increase density, but I could be wrong. Rob Lang would be a good source of info on that.

The reason behind the remaining SFH in the beltline vary, but some are definetely the result of someone holding out for more cash from a developer, and then getting left behind, and now that they are wedged in between redeveloped lots, they have no chance of getting redeveloped. I think there are a few parcels in the west end that ended up that way.

Originally Posted by fusili

"The City" does not upzone land. All land use redesignations and area plans are approved directly through Council.

The Beltline was "upzoned" because of community advocacy, not because of the City (the city planners were actually resistent to the increase in density). In many cases, houses are left in the Beltline not necessarily because of "hold outs" but because of site restrictions, incentives not to demolish existing homes (i.e. you don't need a land use change to put an office in a pre 1950 house in the Beltline- this is an incentive to keep the houses) or just no market for high density housing at that particular time and location.

I don't mean to nitpick, and I agree with your statement generally, I just wanted to clear up the process of how things work.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Me&You

It just seems that Mount Royal is being targeted here because the residents are all wealthy.

I don't think anyone has said that actually. What people have suggested, however, is that Upper Mount Royal has particularly low density. Fact is, Mount Royal's estate area has many rules that protect low density. Some of these include:

Minimum lot width: 24 m (79 ft.) (numerous have over 100' of frontage)

Minimum lot size: 1,100 m2 (11,840 sq. ft.) (numerous are way beyond that)

Front yard setback: minimum 6 m (19.7 ft.) or as per the Upper Mount Royal
Required Front Yard Setback

Only detached single family homes allowed.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

I have no resentment to Mount Royal. I was just trying to point out that it is exactly the residents' wealth that is preserving Mount Royal as it is, when Dizzyedge said he thought that was unreasonable.

No, I thought it was unreasonable to preserve the low density because "rich people should be exempt from the redevelopment pressures of the surrounding hoods" which seemed to be sort of the theme being talked about. I fully agree that the reason it HAS been preserved is due to the political weight the resident's wealth has.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by suburb

I don't think anyone has said that actually. What people have suggested, however, is that Upper Mount Royal has particularly low density. Fact is, Mount Royal's estate area has many rules that protect low density. Some of these include:

Minimum lot width: 24 m (79 ft.) (numerous have over 100' of frontage)

Minimum lot size: 1,100 m2 (11,840 sq. ft.) (numerous are way beyond that)

Front yard setback: minimum 6 m (19.7 ft.) or as per the Upper Mount Royal
Required Front Yard Setback

Only detached single family homes allowed.

Source?

I know several residents of Mount Royal that have no where near 79' of frontage... I'd go so far as saying the majority of lots have a frontage of well under 79'.

Perhaps it's that the minimal divisible width is 79', as in a lot can only be divided if it's more than 178' wide?

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

No, I thought it was unreasonable to preserve the low density because "rich people should be exempt from the redevelopment pressures of the surrounding hoods" which seemed to be sort of the theme being talked about. I fully agree that the reason it HAS been preserved is due to the political weight the resident's wealth has.

It's not just the residents, but the market in general that will preserve Mount Royal as an inner city enclave of estates. As long as wealthy people from all over the rest of Calgary covet a Mount Royal address (there's a joke that Elbow Park exists for people that can't find a spot in Mount Royal), prices will remain such that the incentive for up zoning just isn't there. As Fusili noted, upzoning would be a detriment to land values in Mount Royal...

[Bassic Lab]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

My understanding is that it happens both ways. The Beltline community association was instrumental in promoting the latest round of condo construction (I was at some of the meetings just when the building boom was getting started), however Im not sure what the history is of the area from the days when the first high rise apartments were built. I also remember hearing that the city pro-actively worked with the mission community to increase density, but I could be wrong. Rob Lang would be a good source of info on that.

The reason behind the remaining SFH in the beltline vary, but some are definetely the result of someone holding out for more cash from a developer, and then getting left behind, and now that they are wedged in between redeveloped lots, they have no chance of getting redeveloped. I think there are a few parcels in the west end that ended up that way.

That was essentially my understanding as well. In that, since the amalgamation of Victoria Park and Connaught, the community has held the distinction of actually requesting increased density but that earlier development was more top down. So the older buildings from the late seventies and eighties, which we might call ugly but actually make up most of the community, were not really requested by the residents. It was that move in the seventies that really transitioned the community away from SFHs and towards apartments.

As for Mount Royal, I care a great deal less about the combination of prices, brought about by address exclusivity, and political pressure that keeps it low density than I do about the special treatments it receives that other communities do not. By that I mean the 40 km/h speed limits, ignoring the playground and school zones that make it 30 km/h most of the time, on Sifton Boulevard and Elbow Drive. That difference in the speed limit is the one clear example of two distinct regulatory regimes in this city; there is one set that applies to certain areas and one for every one else.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

No, I thought it was unreasonable to preserve the low density because "rich people should be exempt from the redevelopment pressures of the surrounding hoods" which seemed to be sort of the theme being talked about. I fully agree that the reason it HAS been preserved is due to the political weight the resident's wealth has.

You are missing my point entirely. It is not the "political weight" that wealth allegedly gets, it is the pure economics of land value to the residents who live there.

I will try to use another analogy to make my point again. Assuming Bill Gates lives on a large estate property for this one. If I went to him and offered him $10 million for it, so I could turn it into a high density urban village, he would tell me to get off his property before he unleashed the hounds. It is not worth it to him to sell his land for that much money. Any more than $10 million, and my development wouldn't make a profit, so I can't offer him more. If I were to offer him $10 billion, we might be talking. But the only way I could do that would be if the land value (read, market value, read enough people would want to live in that location) would justify my spending $10 billion on land acquisition, then project development, then sales, to still make a reasonable profit.

Abosuletely nothing to do with politics. Pure market forces. Until the land becomes valuable enough that the current owners find it worth upzoning, it won't happen.

[polishavenger]

Call this sacrilage in the face of our urban values, but I would be the first one up in arms if the mount royal area was facing redevelopment pressure. It is an incredibly beautiful area, and everytime someone from out of town comes to visit, its one area I tend to show them. Each house is unique, the landscaping is mature and well kept. So long as the area doesnt get special property tax treatment, I think it should be protected as both historical, and unique.

Since mount royal density is not the base line for the majority of the cities neighbourhoods, and it covers such a small area, there is nothing to be gained by trying to redevelop it, and a tremendous amount to lose.

Attention should be on creating a new high quality standard for new communities. I think every knew suburb should have at its core an area like brew street in port moody with SFH on the outer perimeter, or should look similar to a neighborhood called Discovery Bay in HK. Check it out, I think most people, even suburbanites would like that area.