N3 Condo (Zero Parking Condo in East Village)

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by MasterG

One thing stood out from the presentation was the overwhelming list of transportation options for the site. 2 blocks from LRT City Hall station (both lines), 1 block from the high-frequency Route 1 / 305 combination, 2 blocks from the pathway system, walking distance to a few thousand downtown jobs and services etc.

It would be hard to have a better site to convince people that an idea like this can actually work. I would have no problems with these scattered throughout the Beltline. It has a similar access to transit and downtown with the bonus of great pedestrian-focused services.

Rather than the Beltline, I'd love to see developments like this all around the downtown core. The Beltline would be great for it too though, of course

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Are there other locations outside of Centre city that would work for this type of development (parkless)? Or are the locations that could work if there was mobility improvements?

Both Brentwood and Westbrook definitely jump out as suburban locations that this could work.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Are there other locations outside of Centre city that would work for this type of development (parkless)? Or are the locations that could work if there was mobility improvements?

Certainly around the university and any inner LRT stations could work. Westbrook would be another good candidate. I would imagine most inner city neighbourhoods could offer this already, albeit perhaps not at this scale. What's wrong with a few 4 storey walkups without parking? Some of the older ones in Sunnyside, Bankview, Beltline, Lower Mount Royal, Mission, Renfrew, Crescent Heights etc. could add an identically sized walk-up building on their surface parking lot and the world would hardly end.

Personally I think the whole parking minimum thing is ridiculous. It seems the city and newspaper comment sections are surprised that the whole "millennials are less interested in driving thing" is happening here just like almost everywhere else. Not to mention it is an obvious way to reduce housing costs and provide option for otherwise too expensive areas.

It's amazing to me the amount of discussion happening around this one building in an area that has access to the best non-car transportation networks in the city as being a radical idea. What was radical was the idea that buildings in this area required parking to begin with.

[MasterG]

There is some serious money to be made for a developer that finds a way to parcel up older inner city condo and apartment building parking lots and build towers on them like this.

I would like to see the market for parking spots become far more liquid. People or existing buildings should be able to sell their parking lots for development easily.

For example, take a typical 1960s / 1970s Beltline building around 6-10 floors, around 30-100 units. Many have no below grade parking and are surrounded by a lot for residents that can be larger than the floor plate of the building they serve.

If I could convince a condo board or an apartment owner that I will pay for your parking lot and build one of these, I can give those owners back 20 - 40K each for their spaces. Sure, it would be tough in many buildings given personal dynamics, but there is some buildings that have so few drivers as it is already. Perhaps a special assessment has come up for a big item and the cash is needed. Or it can reduce condo fees by setting up a sizable reserve fund.

I am not saying everywhere - but certainly some buildings have designs that are no longer applicable to their tenants and area as the city has grown. The area around 17th Ave comes in mind. I know of no one that lives in within a few blocks of it that regularly drives and only a handful have cars that they "need". Cycling is booming in the area, Car2go culture is ubiquitous and most people want everywhere already. It will only increase as the city grows. If you could unlock a 20-40K bonus for each unit for selling the lot, I would be surprised if there weren't a few buildings that take the offer.

I have no idea if it is possible - and I am sure I would break all sorts of zoning bylaws by attempting - but if I can convince the owners of one of those small buildings to give up their spaces, surely there is some value there to be captured.

Once the precedent for new, low cost, no-parking condos is set of course.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by MasterG

It seems the city and newspaper comment sections are surprised that the whole "millennials are less interested in driving thing" is happening here just like almost everywhere else.

Millennials are broke, it isn't that they're driving less and everything else is ceteris paribus, they're doing a lot of things less... like household formation.

Rent + Student Loans + High Interest Consumer Debt = Broke
Low Paying Job + No Debt What-So-Ever = Broke
Fabulous Job + Streaming Netflix on iPhone in Mexico = Broke

The economic circumstances of the Millennials (or as I saw in a British tabloid "Generation Fucked") are fairly sweeping. To extrapolate their present consumer behaviour into a new value system is like saying these people were craving rugged outdoor living, a real sense of camaraderie in their community and an escape from the stifling industrial cities.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MasterG

Received very positive feedback at CPC yesterday, goes to council soon.

One thing stood out from the presentation was the overwhelming list of transportation options for the site. 2 blocks from LRT City Hall station (both lines), 1 block from the high-frequency Route 1 / 305 combination, 2 blocks from the pathway system, walking distance to a few thousand downtown jobs and services etc.


It would be hard to have a better site to convince people that an idea like this can actually work. I would have no problems with these scattered throughout the Beltline. It has a similar access to transit and downtown with the bonus of great pedestrian-focused services.

Are their any grocery stores within walking distance? That'd probably be my biggest issue with not having a car. Dealing with groceries and transit can suck. I know they plan on building one, but will it be done in a similar time frame?

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Are their any grocery stores within walking distance? That'd probably be my biggest issue with not having a car. Dealing with groceries and transit can suck. I know they plan on building one, but will it be done in a similar time frame?

Well they've already signed the two anchor tenants for the RioCan retail block (Loblaws and Canadian Tire) and I believe they have approval, so they could start any time. They don't have to build the towers in the first phase, and almost certainly won't at this point.

[lorenavedon]

no parking is great in a hot market or a city with limited space like Manhattan. In those conditions, people are willing to make sacrifices. I'll buy a 250k condo with no parking vs having to spend 350k if anything is even available. Calgary has no shortage of land and the hot market is cooling. If things REALLY cool off and condos start flooding the market, you will never be able to unload a condo with no parking. Buyers will become way more picky and discerning and immediately dismiss a condo with no parking unless you're basically giving it away. So while in a hot market these ideas sound good, in a dead market these places will be the most illiquid pieces of real estate in the city. Calgary is not Manhattan, San Francisco, Tokyo, London etc. It's a wanna-be big city that got lucky with oil and now that luck is running out. N3 will sell, but overtime it will be nothing more than a rental slum, not a place people will want to call home.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Well they've already signed the two anchor tenants for the RioCan retail block (Loblaws and Canadian Tire) and I believe they have approval, so they could start any time. They don't have to build the towers in the first phase, and almost certainly won't at this point.

RioCan does not have approval, and I am pretty sure the first phase will require one of the towers.

[Ferreth]

I don't get it - why would I buy something in N3, hoping a grocery store gets built, when I can by something with a grocery store already built, in an established area?

http://realtor.ca/propertyDetails.as...rtyId=15285530
$234,900 one bedroom $330 condo fee, with parking space

Is the new shiny factor so appealing or are units like this so run down?

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

RioCan does not have approval, and I am pretty sure the first phase will require one of the towers.

Okay, but why on Earth would it require one of the towers? The towers weren't even in the original plan. If Winnipeg can build a mall with two tower-construction pads on top in the 70s, I'm sure we can do the same in the 10s.

[red_179]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Okay, but why on Earth would it require one of the towers? The towers weren't even in the original plan. If Winnipeg can build a mall with two tower-construction pads on top in the 70s, I'm sure we can do the same in the 10s.

My guess is that it has to do with parking for the condo towers. From a business perspective you would not want to build underground parking for a condo tower, that may or may not ultimately get built. Probably would want to have the tower in pre-sales prior to committing to build the extra underground parking.

[J-D]

The more I think about this project I become a bit less hesitant... I think having a couple of projects like this around town would be fine, but I'd be worried if it were more than a few.

[sim]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

no parking is great in a hot market or a city with limited space like Manhattan. In those conditions, people are willing to make sacrifices. I'll buy a 250k condo with no parking vs having to spend 350k if anything is even available. Calgary has no shortage of land and the hot market is cooling. If things REALLY cool off and condos start flooding the market, you will never be able to unload a condo with no parking. Buyers will become way more picky and discerning and immediately dismiss a condo with no parking unless you're basically giving it away. So while in a hot market these ideas sound good, in a dead market these places will be the most illiquid pieces of real estate in the city. Calgary is not Manhattan, San Francisco, Tokyo, London etc. It's a wanna-be big city that got lucky with oil and now that luck is running out. N3 will sell, but overtime it will be nothing more than a rental slum, not a place people will want to call home.

I always find such comparatives show a fundamental lack of understanding of why something is or isn't done in terms of transportation. There are villages that don't require parking, there are small cities that don't require parking and there are megacities that do require parking. There is no natural city size, geometry, density, structure or network typology that dictates a place should or should not, or require or not require parking; not to mention that the now belief that parking is effectively a non-eliminable requirement is essentially a self-fulfilling prophetic - parking is required, because we require parking.

Had we never implemented policy that requires parking years and years ago, this whole discussion wouldn't exist.

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by sim

I always find such comparatives show a fundamental lack of understanding of why something is or isn't done in terms of transportation. There are villages that don't require parking, there are small cities that don't require parking and there are megacities that do require parking. There is no natural city size, geometry, density, structure or network typology that dictates a place should or should not, or require or not require parking; not to mention that the now belief that parking is effectively a non-eliminable requirement is essentially a self-fulfilling prophetic - parking is required, because we require parking.

Had we never implemented policy that requires parking years and years ago, this whole discussion wouldn't exist.

bottom line. Reselling units in this building down the road to anyone but investors looking to be slumlords will be difficult. The units will not be liquid (aka tough sell) and %95 of the building will be rentals and because of that the building will get run down fast and look old before it's time. Wanna put money on that? If you think it's a great idea, you buy into it and live there for 10 years. Put your money where your mouth is.

[sim]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Millennials are broke, it isn't that they're driving less and everything else is ceteris paribus, they're doing a lot of things less... like household formation.

Rent + Student Loans + High Interest Consumer Debt = Broke
Low Paying Job + No Debt What-So-Ever = Broke
Fabulous Job + Streaming Netflix on iPhone in Mexico = Broke

The economic circumstances of the Millennials (or as I saw in a British tabloid "Generation Fucked") are fairly sweeping. To extrapolate their present consumer behaviour into a new value system is like saying these people were craving rugged outdoor living, a real sense of camaraderie in their community and an escape from the stifling industrial cities.

While I don't disagree that a large part of the reason, and probably the main reason for most areas of the world, is economics, it most certainly is not the only one.

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.

Why should car driving, on the back of supply-side economics and massive subsidization or real and external costs be any different? Again, had we understood the full implications of the policy decisions we made decades ago, this question would (hopefully) be rather irrelevant.

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

[Socguy]

Originally Posted by J-D

The more I think about this project I become a bit less hesitant... I think having a couple of projects like this around town would be fine, but I'd be worried if it were more than a few.

I hear you on this. I think that this project is ideally situation for it's purpose. Cartogo, trains, paths, bikes and units well under $300 000 around all the services people need. I think this one will work. It's a much better way to serve the people who want the inner city lifestyle at more affordable prices than trying to justify those stupid sub 500 foot Lido units that came up the other day.

Still, I would be cautious with how many more of these we build and especially where we put them. Calgary is still designed around the car and anywhere else these go up needs to have access to the same level of alternative transportation infrastructure.

Of course, if this kind of thing does really catch on, it puts pressure on the city to keep expanding alternative infrastructure such as the contentious cycletrack project, which would be a good thing IMO.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

bottom line. Reselling units in this building down the road to anyone but investors looking to be slumlords will be difficult. The units will not be liquid (aka tough sell) and %95 of the building will be rentals and because of that the building will get run down fast and look old before it's time. Wanna put money on that? If you think it's a great idea, you buy into it and live there for 10 years. Put your money where your mouth is.

People who can't afford a 400K condo need a place to live too. This is a great fit for many people, particularly how little other housing stock exists to support exactly this kind of car-free lifestyle. 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%.

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.

[lorenavedon]

Originally Posted by MasterG

People who can't afford a 400K condo need a place to live too. This is a great fit for many people, particularly how little other housing stock exists to support exactly this kind of car-free lifestyle. 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%.

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.

agreed. One as a tester is never a bad thing anyway. Just don't think it will be as successful as people think. At least in the long term. In the short term people get crazy fever and pile onto anything new. Like over valued IPOs. The newness of the whole idea will drive sales, but I'm just willing to bed 10 years down the road these units will be a tough resell.

[McMurph]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

agreed. One as a tester is never a bad thing anyway. Just don't think it will be as successful as people think. At least in the long term...

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.

[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 buy building a condo development on every empty lot. You wouldn't even have to demo anything.