HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2016, 4:50 PM
Urban recluse Urban recluse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,612
I was going to post the link, lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2016, 8:23 PM
Svenn's Avatar
Svenn Svenn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Norwich, UK (formerly Winnipeg)
Posts: 362
I just sold my condo in North St. Boniface and moved to England...missing it already! When I come back in a few years I would love to buy one of those houses in Pointe Hebert.

Here's a link to the new condo development:

http://825tache.com

It looks a couple of CRUs are part of the plan.
__________________
But, you know how it is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2016, 8:47 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,265
^ Those houses in Pointe Hebert sure were snapped up in a hurry...the last one I recall seeing on the market sold several months ago. They weren't cheap either, they seemed a fair bit more expensive than comparable homes in suburban subdivisions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 12:55 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,505
I wonder if any of those lovely homes would have been built after the growth tax was in place? I doubt it.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 2:16 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
I wonder if any of those lovely homes would have been built after the growth tax was in place? I doubt it.
Those are infill homes in an existing neighbourhood, precisely the sort of thing that is encouraged under city policy. The growth fees Bowman is talking about would apply to greenfield developments where all of the infrastructure (roads, parks, sewers, lights, etc.) is new.

I find it bizarre that the economical option for a homebuyer interested in a new home is to build new on the edge of town. Perhaps the fees will restore balance and encourage more Pointe Hebert-type developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 2:20 PM
wags_in_the_peg wags_in_the_peg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 1,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ Those houses in Pointe Hebert sure were snapped up in a hurry...the last one I recall seeing on the market sold several months ago. They weren't cheap either, they seemed a fair bit more expensive than comparable homes in suburban subdivisions.
only one of the homes were ever "for sale" it was the lottery home, asking was around $900k and I believe it went for $800'ish. All the other homes were not spec homes by the builder, then resold, they have all been custom builds once the owner buys a lot.
__________________
just an ordinary Prairie Boy who loves to be in the loop on what is going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 2:24 PM
wags_in_the_peg wags_in_the_peg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 1,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
I find it bizarre that the economical option for a homebuyer interested in a new home is to build new on the edge of town. Perhaps the fees will restore balance and encourage more Pointe Hebert-type developments.
Majority of the people I associate with (mid 40's with 1-3 kids) would only ever consider new suburbs type areas. they have a tough time seeing past the partially boarded homes in that area. I personally love Pointe Hebert, I don't need a lot when I have a deck and hot tub on my rooftop and an extremely short drive to work!

It would be nice if the Province was able to instill similar fees to developments within 30 kms of the perimeter to stop growth outside the city limits and have them pay their fair share.
__________________
just an ordinary Prairie Boy who loves to be in the loop on what is going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 3:24 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg View Post
Majority of the people I associate with (mid 40's with 1-3 kids) would only ever consider new suburbs type areas. they have a tough time seeing past the partially boarded homes in that area. I personally love Pointe Hebert, I don't need a lot when I have a deck and hot tub on my rooftop and an extremely short drive to work!

It would be nice if the Province was able to instill similar fees to developments within 30 kms of the perimeter to stop growth outside the city limits and have them pay their fair share.
Are you sure they aren't having a tough time seeing past the close to $million price tag the houses were going for?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 3:35 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Those are infill homes in an existing neighbourhood, precisely the sort of thing that is encouraged under city policy. The growth fees Bowman is talking about would apply to greenfield developments where all of the infrastructure (roads, parks, sewers, lights, etc.) is new.
That is contrary to what is presently being reported. All infill and commercial development will also be subject to the new tax.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 3:41 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,424
Bowman says wait for the report, haha. But it would be completely stupid. The whole point of the fees is to cover the cost of widespread suburban development. So put the same fee on an infill in St. B? That's contrary to the purpose of the whole thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 3:43 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
That is contrary to what is presently being reported. All infill and commercial development will also be subject to the new tax.
I realize that reporters may not be making careful distinctions on this point, but the news reports I read tossed around the phrase "new developments" when referring to what would be subject to the fee. This stands to reason given that the whole point is to address the new infrastructure that greenfield developments require... it's meant to encourage infill development.

But even if Bowman was planning to apply it to areas like Pointe Hebert... would an extra $30K (or whatever it amounts to) be enough to derail a million dollar house? I suspect that the people who built in Pointe Hebert probably would have ponied up. If you have the scratch to spend $900K on your dream home, you probably aren't going to scrap your plans on account of an extra 3% or whatever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 3:44 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,505
The recent news reports, yesterday and today specifically mentioned all new buildings, infill included, no matter the cost.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 3:46 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,424
As I mentioned before, I'll be in the new home market over the next fee years. I would prefer not to pay an extra $30k haha I will not be building in a far flung suburb. Rather some type of infill along the river hopefully. For me, $30k would represent about 5% of the cost of my home. Probably wouldn't make or break the deal. But could limit some of the finishes we'd be putting in the home, potentially. $30k is nothing to sneeze about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 3:46 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
The recent news reports, yesterday and today specifically mentioned all new buildings, infill included, no matter the cost.
That seems short sighted if the point is to encourage development within the existing footprint of the city. But even then, if everything goes up by an equal amount, then why would Pointe Hebert somehow be doomed? Clearly there are people willing to spend good money on new homes in mature neighbourhoods... why would these be hit any harder than, say, Waverley West?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 3:54 PM
Riverman's Avatar
Riverman Riverman is offline
Fossil fuel & rubber
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cobourg, ON/Mesa, AZ
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
But even then, if everything goes up by an equal amount, then why would Pointe Hebert somehow be doomed?
Because East St. Paul.
__________________
Get off my lawn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 3:56 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 20,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
Because East St. Paul.
Anyone who built one of those new houses in Pointe Hebert could have easily bought a house in East St. Paul instead. If a house at $830K isn't going to push you to East St. Paul, then neither will $860K.

For what it's worth, Bowman was quoted as saying this in today's Sun: "Bowman said the city would ensure a new fee doesn’t deter infill development." This leads me to believe that there could be differential pricing to reflect the true cost of development in various parts of the city... obviously something like Pointe Hebert is less costly for the city given that it's already serviced by streets, sewers, parks, emergency services, libraries, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 4:03 PM
wags_in_the_peg wags_in_the_peg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 1,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
That seems short sighted if the point is to encourage development within the existing footprint of the city. But even then, if everything goes up by an equal amount, then why would Pointe Hebert somehow be doomed? Clearly there are people willing to spend good money on new homes in mature neighbourhoods... why would these be hit any harder than, say, Waverley West?
agreed, schools and roads and transit exist already, why ding those areas. If I tear down a crap house in Norwood or west end and build new, they should not be subject to that.
__________________
just an ordinary Prairie Boy who loves to be in the loop on what is going on
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 4:13 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 7,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by wags_in_the_peg View Post
agreed, schools and roads and transit exist already, why ding those areas. If I tear down a crap house in Norwood or west end and build new, they should not be subject to that.
This would be improving the tax base for the City. You will pay more taxes on your newer, likely larger home, than the City was collecting on said dump that was torn down. Win, win for everyone. Dump gone, more taxes for City, improved neighbourhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 4:18 PM
Urban recluse Urban recluse is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Anyone who built one of those new houses in Pointe Hebert could have easily bought a house in East St. Paul instead. If a house at $830K isn't going to push you to East St. Paul, then neither will $860K.

For what it's worth, Bowman was quoted as saying this in today's Sun: "Bowman said the city would ensure a new fee doesn’t deter infill development." This leads me to believe that there could be differential pricing to reflect the true cost of development in various parts of the city... obviously something like Pointe Hebert is less costly for the city given that it's already serviced by streets, sewers, parks, emergency services, libraries, etc.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2016, 4:30 PM
buzzg buzzg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4,572
I think a fair medium would be to just base it on actual costs as some have mentioned. For example, Pointe Hebert was already completely serviced as there were homes and businesses before.

Something like the new houses on off Grosvenor in River Heights, that land was a field before and most of the site isn't serviced. However, it's easy to service that site because it's surrounded by existing homes, so any fee should be minimal.

Then, something way out at the edge of the city surrounded by nothing will obviously be way more expensive to service because there's nothing there yet, and should have much higher fees.

Some will then argue that those people living further out will pay high fees, and a developers/homeowners that wants to build in the void left between the new area and existing city edge won't have to pay enough/their fair share and the further people will shoulder more of the burden... Well that's the whole damn point. Discourage leaving huge gaps.
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 > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:04 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.