HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #881  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2015, 3:48 PM
LFRENCH's Avatar
LFRENCH LFRENCH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Did I miss something? I saw 7 "paragraphs" and I use that term very loosely. Seriously, he gets paid for that? Const. Mike Otto? I guess "Const." goes to his word count, so why bother typing Constable.
Worlds Longest and shittiest Haiku.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #882  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2015, 3:51 PM
LFRENCH's Avatar
LFRENCH LFRENCH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster3 View Post
The parking article really gets my blood boiling. I had the same argument with my brother in Edmonton while we were looking for street parking around the stadium before the World Cup game. I understand that some restrictions are necessary but residents should know that a few times a year they will have parking issues, as the stadium has been there longer than most. In this case, I would probably just keep parking in front of his house to see what his warning was for. He has no legal recourse.
I have the same problem being near mcmahon stadium.. My road gets clogged up when the stamps play(honestly only when the riders play) and my only grip is that if this was to happen to the owners of the vehicles streets they would loose their shit. However I just park where I can and next time i go out after the game, i move my car back.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #883  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2015, 4:07 PM
Fuzz's Avatar
Fuzz Fuzz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFRENCH View Post
I have the same problem being near mcmahon stadium.. My road gets clogged up when the stamps play(honestly only when the riders play) and my only grip is that if this was to happen to the owners of the vehicles streets they would loose their shit. However I just park where I can and next time i go out after the game, i move my car back.
Ya, I used to live there and the only time it pissed me off was when some douchnozzle parked in front of my driveway blocking it off.

We also used to have a fun past time of sitting on the roof drinking beers. For entertainment we'd turn the back-and-forth sprinkler on, and it just may have had some over spray onto the sidewalk. Accidentally, of course. Watching Roughriders fans getting an unexpected shower was always worth it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #884  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2015, 5:16 PM
Spring2008 Spring2008 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lower Mount Royal, Calgary
Posts: 5,147
Actually I think this is great. I can live with this ratio. The Sun doing their typical anti-MDP, anti-Nenshi etc rant.


http://m.calgarysun.com/2015/11/13/a...i-family-homes
Quote:
HOMES - Real Estate News
Affordability key to rise of multi-family homes
Myke Thomas
Today at 4:00 AM

Calgary’s new homes market has been dominated by multi-family homes, with 14,742 starts in city limits between January 2014 and September 2015. During the same time frame, single-family starts are just 6,740.
It’s a massive reversal in a city that saw 17,187 single-family homes and 16,856 multi-family homes started between January 2010 and December 2013.
Any number of debates could be hosted to explain the rise of multis, with arguments such as shorter commutes, a lock-it-and-leave-it lifestyle, being closer to the action and others.
While these have been a part of the migration to multi-family homes, those that build them talk about the cost of housing in Calgary.
“I believe the significant rise in multi-family homes is directly tied to affordability and in our market we have considerable issues surrounding the cost of housing,” says Charron Ungar, president of Avi Urban. “More buyers entering the marketplace are finding the true cost of restricted development policies ends up being the burden of the end purchaser.”
The restrictive development policies came with the Calgary Municipal Development Plan, which effectively restricted how many single-family homes can be built in new communities.
But, there’s more, Ungar says.
“From rising greenfield levies in suburbs, to expanding redevelopment charges in established communities, the cost of building a home, particularly around land cost and infrastructure, is making it far more difficult for the average Calgarian to buy that new home,” says Ungar.
The gap between an entry level multi-family home and an entry level single-family, depending on finishings, can range from $150,000 to $200,000.
“It really comes down to a question of affordability,” says Adrian Hornett, chartered financial analyst at Truman. “It is far easier for a household to save up a $12,000 down payment, assum- ing 5% down on a purchase price of $240,000 for a two-bedroom condo in one of the suburbs, as opposed to $20,000, assuming 5% down for a $400,000 single-family home in a comparable community. “That difference could equate to one or two years of savings for a typical family with a near median income.”
Generational lifestyle choices, coupled with costs, do play a part, says Gary Siminiuk, marketing manager at Streetside Developments.
“Millennials are staying at home longer and affordability is the main factor for these buyers,” says Siminiuk. “Lifestyle factors such as starting families later in life, socializing in their neighbourhood, having a lock-and-leave preference, shorter commutes, utilizing public transit and being close to work are all important preferences and even though millennials are OK with a smaller space, they don’t want to sacrifice the nicer things that come with home ownership.”
To understand how complete, and ironic, the reversal is, builders broke through the 17,000 annual starts barrier in 2006, starting 10,482 single-family and 6,564 multi-family homes.
That barrier was breached again in 2014, with 6,494 single-family and 10,637 multi-family starts, most of which are condominium-apartments.
Calgary went into the last recession with more than 9,000 apartments under construction and that number has now been exceeded.
Is it too many?
See what the builders have to say in this space next week.

Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google Share on email More Sharing Services
0
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #885  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2015, 8:44 PM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
I don't mind that ratio either, but it needs to be contextualized with the realities of the market. The demand for these things might not be there, so when we push this ratio, it is a little like the tail wagging the dog. The condo market is at greater risk I fear. Hopefully the markets survive in general, but the realities of the economy are quite stark. What was EnCana's numbers for the quarter? A 3 month loss of $1,200,000,000.00? Writing off a Bow a quarter is no joke, and that's just one company. Multiply by 25.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #886  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2015, 11:07 PM
lineman's Avatar
lineman lineman is offline
power to the people!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Crescent Heights, Calgary
Posts: 864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring2008 View Post
Actually I think this is great. I can live with this ratio. The Sun doing their typical anti-MDP, anti-Nenshi etc rant.


http://m.calgarysun.com/2015/11/13/a...i-family-homes
They have a 10-16 page new home section almost daily in their paper. Clearly, they feel obligated to cheerlead the industry to keep that ad revenue pumping in.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #887  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2015, 4:33 PM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
Trouble brewing in the Beltline

Was hearing some major concerns from building occupants in the Beltline. Apparently, Boardwalk has extracted security guards from one of the major downtown condos moving them to a safer more secure central hub, and the suggestion is that this has allowed a deterioration at the building. The occupants were complaining of vagrants taking up residence in the stairwells and public urination inside the building.

On a somewhat related note, looks like police have a breakthrough for one of the recent unsolved homicides in the area:
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/warrants-i...lley-1.2701436

[EDIT]

Just found some coverate of the residential tower. Looks like one of those rental towers (that are now all the rage):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ants-1.3367005

Quote:
Landry is concerned the building's proximity to 17th Avenue S.W. leaves it vulnerable to criminal activity
The CBC radio coverage was more contextualized, detailing some of the things that have happened since the change.

The building is a rental, so frankly speaking, changes of this sort are what you give up by now owning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #888  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2015, 1:09 AM
speedog's Avatar
speedog speedog is offline
Moran supreme
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
Was hearing some major concerns from building occupants in the Beltline. Apparently, Boardwalk has extracted security guards from one of the major downtown condos moving them to a safer more secure central hub, and the suggestion is that this has allowed a deterioration at the building. The occupants were complaining of vagrants taking up residence in the stairwells and public urination inside the building.

On a somewhat related note, looks like police have a breakthrough for one of the recent unsolved homicides in the area:
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/warrants-i...lley-1.2701436

[EDIT]

Just found some coverate of the residential tower. Looks like one of those rental towers (that are now all the rage):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ants-1.3367005



The CBC radio coverage was more contextualized, detailing some of the things that have happened since the change.

The building is a rental, so frankly speaking, changes of this sort are what you give up by now owning.
Non-issue, one person complaining and it makes the news, must have been a slow day.
__________________
Just a wee bit below average prairie boy in Canada's third largest city and fourth largest CMA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #889  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2015, 7:14 AM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
Was hearing some major concerns from building occupants in the Beltline. Apparently, Boardwalk has extracted security guards from one of the major downtown condos moving them to a safer more secure central hub, and the suggestion is that this has allowed a deterioration at the building. The occupants were complaining of vagrants taking up residence in the stairwells and public urination inside the building.

On a somewhat related note, looks like police have a breakthrough for one of the recent unsolved homicides in the area:
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/warrants-i...lley-1.2701436

[EDIT]

Just found some coverate of the residential tower. Looks like one of those rental towers (that are now all the rage):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ants-1.3367005



The CBC radio coverage was more contextualized, detailing some of the things that have happened since the change.

The building is a rental, so frankly speaking, changes of this sort are what you give up by now owning.

Hey there. How's that analysis coming? A few days late already, but under the circumstances, what with it being the most comprehensive cost-benefit analysis the world has ever seen, this can be forgiven. Looking forward to it though!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #890  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2015, 4:57 PM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim View Post
Hey there. How's that analysis coming? A few days late already, but under the circumstances, what with it being the most comprehensive cost-benefit analysis the world has ever seen, this can be forgiven. Looking forward to it though!
The more I think about it, the infertility cycling causes could actually be seen as a positive strategic method to help manage the world's population crisis.

Of course, wrong thread for that discussion. Can't believe I bit on your trolling.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #891  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2015, 4:58 PM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedog View Post
Non-issue, one person complaining and it makes the news, must have been a slow day.
Actually, I think that was the synopsis from the resident's meeting, and frankly, having vagrants allowed into your home whereas previously they were not is a big change even if it really is only one person complaining about it, don't you think?

Did you actually listen to the news coverage, or do you know the situation personally?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #892  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2015, 6:53 PM
Fuzz's Avatar
Fuzz Fuzz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
The more I think about it, the infertility cycling causes could actually be seen as a positive strategic method to help manage the world's population crisis.

Of course, wrong thread for that discussion. Can't believe I bit on your trolling.
Speaking of trolls...
Quote:
July 9, 2014 -- Cycling doesn't lead to male infertility and erectile dysfunction, but it may raise prostate cancer risk in cyclists over 50, a new study finds.

Although it's considered a healthy activity, helping to lower the risks of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and stroke, cycling is commonly believed to affect a man's fertility.
http://www.webmd.com/men/news/201407...le-infertility

Even if it were true, which it is not, commuting short distances isn't going to be an issue. You should be more concerned about the long term effects of having your head stuck up your butt. I think the oxygen deprivation is starting to get to you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #893  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2015, 7:15 PM
fusili's Avatar
fusili fusili is offline
Retrofit Urbanist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,692
People, it's just a mad trolling strategy. Ignore. It makes things better.

As for cycling, negative health effects due to seat position are typically attributed to ultra long distances and lots of time in the saddle. Commutes to work really won't affect that. Now, who wants to do the Banff Gran Fondo with me next year?
__________________
Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #894  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2015, 4:12 AM
sim sim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by suburbia View Post
The more I think about it, the infertility cycling causes could actually be seen as a positive strategic method to help manage the world's population crisis.

Of course, wrong thread for that discussion. Can't believe I bit on your trolling.
Whatever do you mean?

.
.
.

Fun, isn't it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #895  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2015, 10:56 PM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
Is that a new condo building in the picture?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...hone-1.3377061
Quote:
Calgary police need help finding witnesses to a brutal attack that left a man so badly beaten he was found unconscious with a fractured skull on Monday.
<>
... for the purpose of robbing him of his cellphone at 11th Avenue and First Street southeast.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #896  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2016, 2:04 AM
dazzlingdave88 dazzlingdave88 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 202
Didn't know where to put this, but if anyone is interested in a data based argument for increasing the walkability of our cities, I just read this book over Christmas and it was fantastic:

The Walkable City by Jeff Speck

I liked how he meant through 10 aspects of what makes an area walkable. i also like how he doesn't just think every street should become walkable. He gives a very good blueprint on how to overhaul parts of a city.

He also gave this talk on TED talks:

https://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck...ty?language=en
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #897  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2016, 4:38 AM
Spring2008 Spring2008 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lower Mount Royal, Calgary
Posts: 5,147
Surprised this hasn't been talked about more here - the City of Calgary has completely ended all form of sprawl subsidies moving forward. All infrastructure related expenses will be fully recoverable via off-site levies. People across the inner-city development community seem to be ecstatic about this - probably the biggest move ever here in terms of further limiting sprawl, encouraging redevelopment and increasing availability of funds for items such as public realm and infrastructure improvements in established communities.

Summary on pg 43.
http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis...edirect=1&sf=1

Established area levy (water only) ~$3,000 to $6,000 per unit.

Greenfield levy ~$450,000 per hectare or $182,000 per acre. Based on a typical new subdivision density of 10 units per acre works out to about $18,000 per unit.

Kudos to Josh who I believe played a key role in this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #898  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2016, 5:26 AM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring2008 View Post
Surprised this hasn't been talked about more here - the City of Calgary has completely ended all form of sprawl subsidies moving forward. All infrastructure related expenses will be fully recoverable via off-site levies. People across the inner-city development community seem to be ecstatic about this - probably the biggest move ever here in terms of further limiting sprawl, encouraging redevelopment and increasing availability of funds for items such as public realm and infrastructure improvements in established communities.

Summary on pg 43.
http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis...edirect=1&sf=1

Established area levy (water only) ~$3,000 to $6,000 per unit.

Greenfield levy ~$450,000 per hectare or $182,000 per acre. Based on a typical new subdivision density of 10 units per acre works out to about $18,000 per unit.

Kudos to Josh who I believe played a key role in this.
That's great news!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #899  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2016, 1:23 PM
Fuzz's Avatar
Fuzz Fuzz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,421
So now that this levy is covering 100% of the costs, that means our water and sewer bills are going to go down, right? right? *crickets*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #900  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2016, 7:39 PM
suburbia suburbia is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
So now that this levy is covering 100% of the costs, that means our water and sewer bills are going to go down, right? right? *crickets*
The upgrading costs for inner-city sewage "densification" are going up astronomically. Begs the question. When there is substantive densification that requires digging up utilities and adding bandwidth, should those subsidies also be tossed?

Last edited by suburbia; Jan 13, 2016 at 10:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Calgary > Calgary Issues, Business, Politics & the Economy
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:28 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.