Housing Choices - where you choose to live

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

It is also the best way to not respond to the realistic numbers I provided.

You seem to be missing the point. These are the points I am making:

- Assessing cost per square foot does not capture the entire picture. Marginal utility and the law of diminishing returns has to be accounted for.
- Transportation costs, as a general rule, increase as you move further from the centre of a city. Therefore, you should also account for transportation costs when you examine the costs of living.

I am not disagreeing with your numbers, I am disagreeing with your metrics. Raw cost per square foot is not a good metric to measure affordability or utility.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by fusili

I am not disagreeing with your numbers, I am disagreeing with your metrics. Raw cost per square foot is not a good metric to measure affordability or utility.

I never said as much. You certainly do need to include transportation costs, cost of other necessities (EG day care in the core), etc. While your report showed that living in the average Calgary burb is probably cheaper considering both housing and transportation, it missed at least a little bit of adjustment for amount of space,which would make the already cheaper burbs including transportation considerations even cheaper even if we don't do a direct sf for sf compare.

Bottom line - I'm using all your metrics and adding more. You cannot completely discount sf. If someone who is comfortable living in a core condo and wants to do an analysis, they should look for something they are comfortable with should they ever move away and then do the comparison. It actually brings me back to the original post I responded to from KY where he said he'd rather live in his 1K sf unit rather than move to the burbs and have a $500K mortgage. The silliness of that statement is a direct parallel to Cory Mack talking about the Peace Bridge if I ever saw one!

[freeweed]

All this talk of how expensive transportation is in the suburbs completely ignores our LRT (and other transit) system. Only the hyper-rich (or hyper-stupid) drive to work downtown here. And if you don't work downtown, living inner city can make transportation MORE expensive.

Suburban living is cheaper on just about every front for me. Regardless of what some study that looks at cities that are not Calgary says.

[Jimby]

It all comes down to what is the personal cost of spending your time commuting back and forth to the job.

[hulkrogan]

Originally Posted by freeweed

All this talk of how expensive transportation is in the suburbs completely ignores our LRT (and other transit) system. Only the hyper-rich (or hyper-stupid) drive to work downtown here. And if you don't work downtown, living inner city can make transportation MORE expensive.

Suburban living is cheaper on just about every front for me. Regardless of what some study that looks at cities that are not Calgary says.

I'm not arguing with the fact suburban living is cheaper, but despite taking LRT, hear me out for a second here. All this is based on my experience living in Rocky Ridge. I didn't hate it, it wasn't hell, but I moved to Bridgeland to get a bit closer in for various reasons/preferences:

Work commute- Rocky Ridge
-6km to Crowfoot LRT x 2, 12km/day
-Monthly pass $94

For my car (terrible on gas, divide these numbers by 2 for an economy car), and assuming 235 commutes downtown per year, that is 2820km/year, which is about $480 in gas for getting to and from the train, half an oil change, so $50 (I'll call tires/depreciation 'insignificant') and $1128 in transit passes.

Work commute Rocky Ridge total- $1658

Work commute Bridgeland-

$200 bike tuneup per year, we'll call 50% of that due to commuting
$50/year on replacing bike gear

Work commute Bridgeland total- $150

The difference being $1508/year, $126/mo

On a 25 year mortgage that adds up to $20,000 I can justify in house price difference (if you don't like riding your bike that is nearly wiped out)

The big difference for me though is I do things after work. Going to Flames games I would always come home for dinner grab everyone, and drive back down as LRT would take too long to make it home in time and I'd be buying dinner.

Playing hockey, almost all of the rinks were a significant difference in distance. Between that, longer drives to friends and relatives houses, longer drives to meet people at a pub downtown etc, I was looking at an extra 12,000km/year I put on my car, and extra $2000 in gas, $250 in oil changes, and a not insignificant amount of wear/tear/depreciation.

If you add the $2250 to the $1508, you're now at $4000 easy if you give consideration to wear/tear/maintenance.

Add that to your mortgage and you're now at about $70,000 per year you can justify, and the rest you are spending on buying back time. My commute now, once I'm on my bike, is between 8 and 9 minutes on clear roads/paths (got a bike GPS for my birthday and haven't been over 9 minutes this week).

From Rocky Ridge it was a 30minute train/walk plus about a 10 minute drive/walk to commute via LRT, conservatively estimated. So it all depends on how much I wanted to give up for an hour of time back every day, both in square footage, and in money. That was part of my reason, the other was lifestyle. I really missed being in a walkable neighbourhood like I grew up in.

Anyways, that's my spiel, I've been on both sides of the fence, and both have a lot of perks.

[freeweed]

Sure, but if you start factoring in riding a bike in January (and damn near everywhere you go), you're no longer comparing apples to apples here. So yes, for the very small subset of people who are willing to do this, of course you save money. And for the larger subset of people who spend much/most of their personal lives downtown, no kidding, you'll save a ton of money and time.

However, most suburbanites don't spend their lives driving into downtown 3-4 nights every week. It's actually surprising how little many of them DO drive - schools are nearby, recreation is nearby, shopping is nearby. Hell, it's the sprawl. We have all that — pretty much by definition. It's shocking how low a lot of people's odometers are out here (I may have mentioned once or a thousand times that I drive a LOT, but little of it has to do with my choice of housing location - I just like driving highways).

I dunno, I guess I just don't much understand the point of the cost analysis being done by many of you. If you spend your life downtown (or inner city, or whatever boundary we want to use) - no —, it's cheaper to live there. I don't think this comes as a surprise to anyone.

Personally, the time spent would be far, far more important than the few thousand bucks a year cost difference. We're talking an hour or more every day. I don't know about you, but 200+ hours is worth a hell of a lot more than $4000 to me. I guess I'm just surprised that these cost discussions keep coming up when in a city like Calgary, they're minor compared to the real issues - time, sustainability, infrastructure cost, you name it.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by Me&You

I know you said "in a perfect world", but... Are you on crack?

You described my home to a near "T"... Rooms are a little larger and there are some nice other 'extras', but you're not even 1/3 of the way there on pricing.

At first the random posts on here dreaming of an "ideal" inner city housing mix were "nice" and even amusing, but it's getting stupid. There's simple math and economics at play here, neither of which allow for a 3 bedroom "townhouse" to be built in the innercity for less than $500k...

Have you ever read "Dwell?" Out of the box thinking could go a long way to get closer to the price I was quoting. I am actually thinking of some the bridgeland condos (5 story ones). For a while they were priced at about 290,000 and they just seemed really large on the inside although the square footage was smaller. Everything was in the right place in those condos.

Also, there were a number of units for sale for about 290,000 as well up on the hill with a garage and a little bit larger square footage.

I just want solutions to bring kids and families (on a mid-level income like myself) back to the inner city. The sounds of kids playing in the summer brings a certain vitality to a neighborhood.

[kw5150]

Had the MOST amazing pub / dinner night in inner city last night. Every place we went to was absolutely packed.

We started at Borgo......
continued on to ship and anchor.......
Had dinner at Ox and Angela....great place, great food (great staff).
Had a beer at ming.
Hop and Brew for a pint.
Unicorn for the final pint.
Then walked home (and may have had a pizza slice)

Transportation cost: $0

What a night. We were showing our England guest around for one final night and it was great. Glad to see 17th ave hopping.

This is why I live down here.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by suburb

I never said as much. You certainly do need to include transportation costs, cost of other necessities (EG day care in the core), etc. While your report showed that living in the average Calgary burb is probably cheaper considering both housing and transportation, it missed at least a little bit of adjustment for amount of space,which would make the already cheaper burbs including transportation considerations even cheaper even if we don't do a direct sf for sf compare.

Bottom line - I'm using all your metrics and adding more. You cannot completely discount sf. If someone who is comfortable living in a core condo and wants to do an analysis, they should look for something they are comfortable with should they ever move away and then do the comparison. It actually brings me back to the original post I responded to from KY where he said he'd rather live in his 1K sf unit rather than move to the burbs and have a $500K mortgage. The silliness of that statement is a direct parallel to Cory Mack talking about the Peace Bridge if I ever saw one!

I have more spare money because I live downtown in a condo. I also have more spare time everyday. Its worth the sacrifice. Rush hour is NOT for me. Waiting at traffic lights....not for me. Driving to everything.....not for me.

Being with the great people of the inner city.....for me!

[hulkrogan]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Sure, but if you start factoring in riding a bike in January (and damn near everywhere you go), you're no longer comparing apples to apples here. So yes, for the very small subset of people who are willing to do this, of course you save money. And for the larger subset of people who spend much/most of their personal lives downtown, no kidding, you'll save a ton of money and time.

However, most suburbanites don't spend their lives driving into downtown 3-4 nights every week. It's actually surprising how little many of them DO drive - schools are nearby, recreation is nearby, shopping is nearby. Hell, it's the sprawl. We have all that — pretty much by definition. It's shocking how low a lot of people's odometers are out here (I may have mentioned once or a thousand times that I drive a LOT, but little of it has to do with my choice of housing location - I just like driving highways).

I dunno, I guess I just don't much understand the point of the cost analysis being done by many of you. If you spend your life downtown (or inner city, or whatever boundary we want to use) - no —, it's cheaper to live there. I don't think this comes as a surprise to anyone.

Personally, the time spent would be far, far more important than the few thousand bucks a year cost difference. We're talking an hour or more every day. I don't know about you, but 200+ hours is worth a hell of a lot more than $4000 to me. I guess I'm just surprised that these cost discussions keep coming up when in a city like Calgary, they're minor compared to the real issues - time, sustainability, infrastructure cost, you name it.

Most of my friends who live in the suburbs are putting about 20,000km on a year, and they aren't spending much time downtown at all. Most of the point of my cost analysis was saying that the LRT doesn't mean you still don't have transportation costs to worry about. It was the non-commute kilometers that added up, and when I lived there going downtown in the evening wasn't a regular thing at all, besides Flames games.

The funny thing is as soon as I moved I also changed jobs. I almost ended up taking one in the University Research park... that would have sucked, moving close to downtown just to be back on the LRT again.

Oh, and people that aren't willing to ride their bikes in January should move. If you can't spend 20 minutes outside in the winter here, you're a wuss

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Had the MOST amazing pub / dinner night in inner city last night. Every place we went to was absolutely packed.

We started at Borgo......
continued on to ship and anchor.......
Had dinner at Ox and Angela....great place, great food (great staff).
Had a beer at ming.
Hop and Brew for a pint.
Unicorn for the final pint.
Then walked home (and may have had a pizza slice)

Transportation cost: $0

What a night. We were showing our England guest around for one final night and it was great. Glad to see 17th ave hopping.

This is why I live down here.

Cost of beer/food: $50+ (unless you found $2 pints in this city).

My suburban dinner plus drinks at home cost me about $10 for the equivalent. Transportation cost: also $0. Might have cost me $2 in gas had I had to drive 5 mins specifically to pick up the food and beer for the one occasion - although I could have walked for those things in less time than the described journey took.

This is why these cost analyses around transportation alone are almost meaningless. Lifestyle is far, far more important to consider. Said lifestyle drives far more expenses into the equation than transportation ever could.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Most of my friends who live in the suburbs are putting about 20,000km on a year, and they aren't spending much time downtown at all.

20,000 km a year works out to an average of about 55km each and every single day. And if that's not driving downtown... where the heck are they driving? 27km from just about any point in Calgary gets you across more than half the city. Every. Single. Day.

Or to put it another way - I'd bet a lot of those km are road trips, which aren't substantially affected by suburban living (in my case, they're actually shortened as 95% of my trips are to the mountains, which is very common in this city).

Or to put it a third way - I think most of this driving is dictated less by housing location and more by the fact that they feel the need to sit in their car all damn day long just to have any fun. I put on fewer than 5000km a year from city driving, and I live literally at the edge of the city (city limit sign is about 1km away from my house).

[hulkrogan]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Or to put it a third way - I think most of this driving is dictated less by housing location and more by the fact that they feel the need to sit in their car all damn day long just to have any fun. I put on fewer than 5000km a year from city driving, and I live literally at the edge of the city (city limit sign is about 1km away from my house).

I agree with this quite a bit. The amount of people I know that will hit Home Depot, Costco, Bed Bath and Beyond, another location of Home Depot every weekend is astounding. Those are killers for kilometers.

1 of those days, 2 days of playing hockey which will easily average 40km round trip, visit the family for Sunday dinner across town, and it doesn't take a ton of highway kilometers to hit 20,000 (combined for all vehicles in the house).

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Most of my friends who live in the suburbs are putting about 20,000km on a year, and they aren't spending much time downtown at all. Most of the point of my cost analysis was saying that the LRT doesn't mean you still don't have transportation costs to worry about. It was the non-commute kilometers that added up, and when I lived there going downtown in the evening wasn't a regular thing at all, besides Flames games.

The funny thing is as soon as I moved I also changed jobs. I almost ended up taking one in the University Research park... that would have sucked, moving close to downtown just to be back on the LRT again.

Oh, and people that aren't willing to ride their bikes in January should move. If you can't spend 20 minutes outside in the winter here, you're a wuss

Yes, and if you get to have this great lifestyle (that you are clearly enjoying) for only one or two years and then have to move again.....who cares. At least you got those two excellent years where you got to rediscover your city and live centrally.

I have to admit, I don't ride my bike in the winter. I just hop the free LRT line until about april.

[kw5150]

Haven't used the car since Sunday.

[kora]

My reasons for living inner city have little to do with economics, which have been discussed much in this thread. Let's even assume that living downtown costs more.

My primary reason is the lifestyle which includes walking to work and for all my daily shopping and entertainment needs. Walking is a great form of exercise and a way to get fresh air - indoor air quality in our homes is usually worse than outside, even downtown. I understand not everyone needs the stimulation that downtown offers for entertainment options, but it's an important consideration for me. If I lived in the suburbs, I'd have to make a trip to see a show. Living in the heart of it, decisions can be made more spontaneously with no preparation or commute. I also like to be surrounded by lots of people when I go walking. And I like constant change.

A close second reason is the environmental impact of North American suburban living, which is in my opinion unsustainable for the planet. To start with, suburban neighbourhoods consume a great deal of land compared with compact urban households. Natural habitats, wildlife, agricultural land are all displaced, replaced by lawns and wide roads. Suburban homes tend to require much more energy to heat and cool per square foot compared to apartments - I have yet to turn up the heat in my apartment this year. Travel distances to work and other destinations are often greater in the suburban context, necessitating motorized travel for many trips. Dependence on fossil fuels for home heating/cooling and vehicle use is fueling climate change, an undesirable outcome for humanity.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Yes, and if you get to have this great lifestyle (that you are clearly enjoying) for only one or two years and then have to move again.....who cares. At least you got those two excellent years where you got to rediscover your city and live centrally.

I think this is a model we'll see more and more in Calgary as the years go by. The term was coined somewhat derogatorily, but Young Urban Professionals really should be in the core. Even if just for a few years they'll probably love it. Grow the family, move a bit further out.. but you still had some great times. And some will inevitably stay and raise families right out of their condos.

One of my only regrets about my youth was that I didn't grow up in a city with a decent inner city (in just about every respect). My 20s would have been MUCH more enjoyable if I was in a downtown condo somewhere.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I think this is a model we'll see more and more in Calgary as the years go by. The term was coined somewhat derogatorily, but Young Urban Professionals really should be in the core. Even if just for a few years they'll probably love it. Grow the family, move a bit further out.. but you still had some great times. And some will inevitably stay and raise families right out of their condos.

One of my only regrets about my youth was that I didn't grow up in a city with a decent inner city (in just about every respect). My 20s would have been MUCH more enjoyable if I was in a downtown condo somewhere.

Exactly. My neighbourhood is pretty much 80% yuppies. Young kids (3-15) probably do better in the 'burbs, but living downtown I could see as much more exciting for other age groups.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Have you ever read "Dwell?" Out of the box thinking could go a long way to get closer to the price I was quoting. I am actually thinking of some the bridgeland condos (5 story ones). For a while they were priced at about 290,000 and they just seemed really large on the inside although the square footage was smaller. Everything was in the right place in those condos.

Also, there were a number of units for sale for about 290,000 as well up on the hill with a garage and a little bit larger square footage.

I just want solutions to bring kids and families (on a mid-level income like myself) back to the inner city. The sounds of kids playing in the summer brings a certain vitality to a neighborhood.

Yes, I'm vary familiar with Dwell and there are certainly some interesting ideas in there.

Again, "out of the box" doesn't equate to real numbers or economic sense. Calgary is a an expensive city and just "hoping" for housing choices at prices that can't possibly be achieved doesn't help anything. I say "hoping" because that's all it will be. A quick calculation based on a "family" compatible townhouse (3 bedrooms, living space, garage, ~1,300sf) -

Cost of building - $220/sf = $286,000 x 4 units = $1,144,000
Building lot that can accomodate 4 townhomes = $800,000 (at least)
Total cost of building - $1.944MM

Add carrying costs and builder profit (using 10% - Ha!) and you're at ~$2.25MM or $562,000 per unit... $220psf will be an "ok" level of finishing. Most builders would rather spend another $30-50psf and build larger for a "luxury" development that they can sell for $750k+++... That would allow for nearly twice the percentage of profit.

Simply put, land is too expensive for "reasonably" priced inner-city townhomes... Developers would be leaving far too much on the table if they were to choose to build these reasonable units for charitable reasons... If you disagree, feel free to start a development co...

[suburb]

Originally Posted by kora

My primary reason is the lifestyle which includes walking to work and for all my daily shopping and entertainment needs. Walking is a great form of exercise and a way to get fresh air - indoor air quality in our homes is usually worse than outside, even downtown.

Agreed. I love the parks and pathways around our place, as well as the recreations centre, shopping, restaurants, golf, etc. While walking is easy in downtown, it cannot compare to fresh air elsewhere, and with less air, noise and light pollution!

Originally Posted by kora

Suburban homes tend to require much more energy to heat and cool per square foot compared to apartments - I have yet to turn up the heat in my apartment this year.

You must not be in one of the more modern glass towers that piss heat away and/or require massive amounts of electricity to cool the place in summer, given heat from other floors and the heat from the same windows. My parents are in a more traditional place - like you they hardly need to use the heater - but man the A/C goes overtime in summer! Still better than the glass towers where they'd get the worst of both worlds I suppose.

Originally Posted by fusili

Exactly. My neighbourhood is pretty much 80% yuppies. Young kids (3-15) probably do better in the 'burbs, but living downtown I could see as much more exciting for other age groups.

If you want to increase numbers in the core, accommodations may need to be more thoughtful for seniors. There will be a lot more of them soon! This is a serious comment actually. Seniors are often just fine with less sf, but require additional services (perhaps even once a week organized social programs), accessibility (which is generally fine anyway) and most of all, affordability (which is sometimes the biggest challenge in the core).