Westbrook Redevelopment Project

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by brentwood

Agree that expropriation may be necessary at some point but sitting on unproductive land and collecting marginal yet easy rents in the hopes of a future windfall is my definition of speculation.

I don't think being a retailer with a parking lot is speculation.

[sportsdude]

Originally Posted by Spring2008

There should be more TOD options. Don't know why it seems like only the stations along the NW line are developing anything substantial outside of the inner-city. There should be at least 1-2 towers going up or at least in the works at stations like Erlton, Chinook, Heritage on the South line, and Sunalta and Westbrook on the West at all times!

I don't think Heritage should be included on the list considering the substantial London development.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Tell Edmonton that.

Just quoting the MGA. Perhaps they didn't have a good lawyer. And based on my limited experience in Edmonton, they usually don't.

EDIT- Just to be clear we are talking about expropriation, not purchase. A municipality has every right to purchase property like any other individual obviously. But the powers of expropriation must have an explicit municipal purpose.

[Policy Wonk]

Edmonton used expropriation to evict the tenants of the City Centre Airport. The expropriation was challenged by way of an application for a judicial review and rejected.

Since I don't think this topic needs input from the ERAA Booster Society, I will leave it at that.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

so basically downtown should only be for rich people and Chinese billionaires desperate to get their cash out of china. God forbid we have some affordable units for regular people that actually want to live there, close to their jobs and contribute to a community.

What does that have to do with the fact that lower end/priced condos do not help to curb sprawl?

[poopysheep]

why do the condo's have to be lower end? I guess i would think that creating condo's with family friendly layouts is necessary to attract families. Lower the price tag on a 600sqft condo isn't going to attract families. I live in the Beltline and have since 1995 - a shift towards more row style townhouses and 4 plexes, smaller 3 or 4 story walk ups, not everything HAS to be some big tower with 160 units all with 1 bdrm and "flex" room that's the size of a glorified closet. I know lots of families that would consider living closer to downtown if they could find places with real livable floor plans. If you could build that and keep the price around $350-$600 - that would create real communities of regular - not high income or low income - just average people who don't want to be stuck on deerfoot with a shit commute but also can't wrap their heads around living in 600sqft

[O-tacular]

Had a chance to check out the subway station today. Amazing the light makes it all the way down there. It struck me in person how little free land there is for the new TOD. are they planning on demoing those brick multiplexes to the West of it?

Also I noticed Bronco's project is quite deep into the ground and had trucks hauling dirt away. There's now a crane set up there too. I can't remember, didn't someone say it's been raised to 3 floors now? I hope so.

[MichaelS]

Yes, it will now be 3 storeys.

[Design-mind]

Originally Posted by poopysheep

why do the condo's have to be lower end? I guess i would think that creating condo's with family friendly layouts is necessary to attract families. Lower the price tag on a 600sqft condo isn't going to attract families. I live in the Beltline and have since 1995 - a shift towards more row style townhouses and 4 plexes, smaller 3 or 4 story walk ups, not everything HAS to be some big tower with 160 units all with 1 bdrm and "flex" room that's the size of a glorified closet. I know lots of families that would consider living closer to downtown if they could find places with real livable floor plans. If you could build that and keep the price around $350-$600 - that would create real communities of regular - not high income or low income - just average people who don't want to be stuck on deerfoot with a shit commute but also can't wrap their heads around living in 600sqft

Well said. I have a few friends with kids who do not really want to move out of their condos, because of location, but are finding the 600sf condo hard to live in as their children get older. Maybe what they build here in Westbrook will incorporate family friendly layouts and sizes.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Design-mind

Well said. I have a few friends with kids who do not really want to move out of their condos, because of location, but are finding the 600sf condo hard to live in as their children get older. Maybe what they build here in Westbrook will incorporate family friendly layouts and sizes.

One can hope but I remain doubtful. I find it ironic that with the exception of University City and London condos all the TOD developments that have been built so far have targeted wealthier demographics. Those ugly condos at Northhill mall, highbury at Fishcreek station and Ovation etc. to name a few. You can't tell me the hoytie toytie old people that live in those are going to ride transit. I wonder if the city might take a more active role in defining the percentage of high end versus affordable units in these developments. Unless they do that I can't see TOD's succeeding in the long run.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

One can hope but I remain doubtful. I find it ironic that with the exception of University City and London condos all the TOD developments that have been built so far have targeted wealthier demographics. Those ugly condos at Northhill mall, highbury at Fishcreek station and Ovation etc. to name a few. You can't tell me the hoytie toytie old people that live in those are going to ride transit. I wonder if the city might take a more active role in defining the percentage of high end versus affordable units in these developments. Unless they do that I can't see TOD's succeeding in the long run.

<sigh>

Again, the developments do not have to be "cheap". They have to be "large" units that target the different demographic known as "families" to change the demographics of inner city living. The higher density areas of the city already have a disproportionate number of the lower income people living in them. It is the lower density areas of the city that tend to attract the money, and that is partly because of unit sizes.

What the person you responded to and that you quoted said is not solved by University City or London style developments, those places had small units and were completely unsuitable for families.

If you want families then you need 1200+SQF at least, and it is not going to be "cheap" based on that square footage alone. BUT, you are trying to steal people from the burbs and their $650,000+ single family homes if you are truly trying to shift demographics, these people CAN afford pricey units, they simple don't have any out there to buy that suit a family.

A TOD like Westbrook should basically be very much developed almost exactly like East Village, at that scale, at that price point, and with that type of pedestrian orientated amenity rich community that includes some park space. That and some units in the 1200 SQF+ range, some with 3 bedrooms, and you will get some families.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

One can hope but I remain doubtful. I find it ironic that with the exception of University City and London condos all the TOD developments that have been built so far have targeted wealthier demographics. Those ugly condos at Northhill mall, highbury at Fishcreek station and Ovation etc. to name a few. You can't tell me the hoytie toytie old people that live in those are going to ride transit. I wonder if the city might take a more active role in defining the percentage of high end versus affordable units in these developments. Unless they do that I can't see TOD's succeeding in the long run.

That's an interesting point. Data for this kind of stuff is really spotty because there are so many variables. In my opinion, high ridership at Westbrook can be achieved with highly diverse development and strong transit connections to other hubs, namely Foothills/UofC and MRU. In addition to residential, the area is definitely suited for some office development, and maybe even an institution down the road (ie another college or something).

One problem Westbrook will face for years is that will be competing with high-density developments that are far more centrally located and on similarly-valued land. I don't think we will really see the kind of development that we all want until (A) Beltline, EV, Vic Park, Sunalta, Bridgeland land supply becomes scarce, (B) Westbrook is connected by rapid(er) transit to Foothills, UofC, MRU, and Calgary south of Glenmore, and (C) the surrounding area becomes denser, more gentrified, more trendy, and supports more retail. Then again, if for every twenty 30-story condos we get Downtown we get one at Westbrook, it will fill out before too long. On the other hand, if we offer 4-8 story buildings (on a similar scale to Bridgeland), I think the area could develop nicely. I suppose the first thing is to build the new roads and start selling the land.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Tropics

<sigh>

Again, the developments do not have to be "cheap". They have to be "large" units that target the different demographic known as "families" to change the demographics of inner city living. The higher density areas of the city already have a disproportionate number of the lower income people living in them. It is the lower density areas of the city that tend to attract the money, and that is partly because of unit sizes.

What the person you responded to and that you quoted said is not solved by University City or London style developments, those places had small units and were completely unsuitable for families.

If you want families then you need 1200+SQF at least, and it is not going to be "cheap" based on that square footage alone. BUT, you are trying to steal people from the burbs and their $650,000+ single family homes if you are truly trying to shift demographics, these people CAN afford pricey units, they simple don't have any out there to buy that suit a family.

A TOD like Westbrook should basically be very much developed almost exactly like East Village, at that scale, at that price point, and with that type of pedestrian orientated amenity rich community that includes some park space. That and some units in the 1200 SQF+ range, some with 3 bedrooms, and you will get some families.

Agreed. If you can offer 1500 sqft (3-4 bedroom) units for 500k, I'm sure you'd have no problem selling them. Especially if there is some kind of courtyard or park access.

The unfortunate thing is that this kind of product is actually possible, but not when the capital needed for these projects to generate any return is in the tens of millions and the risk perceived as high as it is in Calgary. It's this weird problem called capitalism, where everyone wants to make money. Construction cost is only about 60% of the cost to the buyer - the rest is financing, marketing, commission, developer profit, overhead, and lot price.

Sorry about the facetious rant. That's poor "netiquette" on my part. Good night.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

One can hope but I remain doubtful. I find it ironic that with the exception of University City and London condos all the TOD developments that have been built so far have targeted wealthier demographics. Those ugly condos at Northhill mall, highbury at Fishcreek station and Ovation etc. to name a few. You can't tell me the hoytie toytie old people that live in those are going to ride transit. I wonder if the city might take a more active role in defining the percentage of high end versus affordable units in these developments. Unless they do that I can't see TOD's succeeding in the long run.

How could the city legally even do that? Other than straight out buying units that are built (attainable homes is actually becoming a large buyer of multi-family units), the city can't mandate the price of a unit, nor put any controls on it.

Why is it so bad that older couples and empty nesters are living in these areas? They are perhaps some of the most transit dependent demographics, as many cannot (or should not) drive anymore. While they aren't making trips during the commute, they sure do help with daytime transit usage.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by Tropics

<sigh>

Again, the developments do not have to be "cheap". They have to be "large" units that target the different demographic known as "families" to change the demographics of inner city living. The higher density areas of the city already have a disproportionate number of the lower income people living in them. It is the lower density areas of the city that tend to attract the money, and that is partly because of unit sizes.

What the person you responded to and that you quoted said is not solved by University City or London style developments, those places had small units and were completely unsuitable for families.

If you want families then you need 1200+SQF at least, and it is not going to be "cheap" based on that square footage alone. BUT, you are trying to steal people from the burbs and their $650,000+ single family homes if you are truly trying to shift demographics, these people CAN afford pricey units, they simple don't have any out there to buy that suit a family.

A TOD like Westbrook should basically be very much developed almost exactly like East Village, at that scale, at that price point, and with that type of pedestrian orientated amenity rich community that includes some park space. That and some units in the 1200 SQF+ range, some with 3 bedrooms, and you will get some families.

There is too much housing stock dedicated to the "traditional" 2 child, 2 parent family as is (i.e. suburbia). Yes it is a large demographic segment, but by no means a majority, nor is it increasing in proportion against the other segments out there (empty nesters, singles, couples with no kids etc.)

While I think most neighbourhoods and developments should do their best to have all income and family types be able to be represented, building for the traditional family size simply isn't cost effective in these areas for less than the 650 - 1 million prices. They reduce affordability by increasing size of the units.

Rather than try to move the families from the suburbs, I would think the main shift you'll see is the other demographic groups (singles, empty nesters etc.) will be the ones returning from suburbia. Their capital is much more effective spent in a cheaper condo than a standard house built for a family that doesn't exist with a bunch of empty rooms. You'd be surprised how many singles buy houses on their own in places that are entirely designed for families because of a lack of housing choice, perceived by them or real.

Those people will be the main shift, not the families themselves.

[lorenavedon]

Family friendly does not necceesarily mean “more space”. That’s the entire problem with this frame of mind. Sqftage costs money. The proper thinking is not “more space” but “more efficient use of space”. What a family needs isn’t more space its separation and privacy. I’ve seen 1 bedroom units that are 1000sqft and 2 bedroom units that are 650 sqft. What’s more useful for a family? It’s the 2 bedroom regardless of the smaller sqft because you get the privacy and space separation. It’s 2014, things are small and light. You can have a very comfortable lifestyle in a small well used space. A family on a budget that wants to live central doesn’t need 1000sqft- 1 bedroom 1500-2bedroom or 2000-3 bedroom billion dollar units. What they need is 650sqft 2 bedroom or 900sqft 3 bedroom affordable units that give them the sound/noise space separation for kids/office etc.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MasterG

There is too much housing stock dedicated to the "traditional" 2 child, 2 parent family as is (i.e. suburbia). Yes it is a large demographic segment, but by no means a majority, nor is it increasing in proportion against the other segments out there (empty nesters, singles, couples with no kids etc.)

While I think most neighbourhoods and developments should do their best to have all income and family types be able to be represented, building for the traditional family size simply isn't cost effective in these areas for less than the 650 - 1 million prices. They reduce affordability by increasing size of the units.

Rather than try to move the families from the suburbs, I would think the main shift you'll see is the other demographic groups (singles, empty nesters etc.) will be the ones returning from suburbia. Their capital is much more effective spent in a cheaper condo than a standard house built for a family that doesn't exist with a bunch of empty rooms. You'd be surprised how many singles buy houses on their own in places that are entirely designed for families because of a lack of housing choice, perceived by them or real.

Those people will be the main shift, not the families themselves.

Average household sizes by structure type in Calgary (2013 Census results)

Single family: 3.0
Duplex: 2.5
Townhouse: 2.3
Apartment: 1.6

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by lorenavedon

Family friendly does not necceesarily mean “more space”. That’s the entire problem with this frame of mind. Sqftage costs money. The proper thinking is not “more space” but “more efficient use of space”. What a family needs isn’t more space its separation and privacy. I’ve seen 1 bedroom units that are 1000sqft and 2 bedroom units that are 650 sqft. What’s more useful for a family? It’s the 2 bedroom regardless of the smaller sqft because you get the privacy and space separation. It’s 2014, things are small and light. You can have a very comfortable lifestyle in a small well used space. A family on a budget that wants to live central doesn’t need 1000sqft- 1 bedroom 1500-2bedroom or 2000-3 bedroom billion dollar units. What they need is 650sqft 2 bedroom or 900sqft 3 bedroom affordable units that give them the sound/noise space separation for kids/office etc.

How many of you live in your place, and how many square feet is it? Just curious how you manage the little ones.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by Tropics

What the person you responded to and that you quoted said is not solved by University City or London style developments, those places had small units and were completely unsuitable for families.

If you want families then you need 1200+SQFT at least, and it is not going to be "cheap" based on that square footage alone. BUT, you are trying to steal people from the burbs and their $650,000+ single family homes if you are truly trying to shift demographics, these people CAN afford pricey units, they simple don't have any out there to buy that suit a family.

London had lots of large units, all the corner suites were within the 1250+ SQFT range you referenced, and some of them were the worst selling units.

The market builds small units because that is what the market wants, and is willing to buy. You cannot feasibly build 1200 SQFT units that target the $350-400K range because you would lose money on every single unit you sell. Blame land prices, construction costs, regulations, or whatever, but Calgary is an expensive place to build High-Rise condos.

If you really want to encourage more family units, restrict the suburban land supply until the cost of a typical single-family home is higher than the economic cost of a comparable multi-family home. Somewhere in the $450-500K range for a starter home should do it. You will also need to provide better transit, schools, and parks since you will only have one car per unit.

Your best baby step option is to encourage more "family" sized units is in ground oriented housing in the inner-city where single-family house prices are already high (Marda loop, North Central etc) through some sort of bonusing or relaxation guideline. Once you've proven the demand there, you may see more High-Rise developers take note.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

London had lots of large units, all the corner suites were within the 1250+ SQFT range you referenced, and some of them were the worst selling units.

The market builds small units because that is what the market wants, and is willing to buy. You cannot feasibly build 1200 SQFT units that target the $350-400K range because you would lose money on every single unit you sell. Blame land prices, construction costs, regulations, or whatever, but Calgary is an expensive place to build High-Rise condos.

If you really want to encourage more family units, restrict the suburban land supply until the cost of a typical single-family home is higher than the economic cost of a comparable multi-family home. Somewhere in the $450-500K range for a starter home should do it. You will also need to provide better transit, schools, and parks since you will only have one car per unit.

Your best baby step option is to encourage more "family" sized units is in ground oriented housing in the inner-city where single-family house prices are already high (Marda loop, North Central etc) through some sort of bonusing or relaxation guideline. Once you've proven the demand there, you may see more High-Rise developers take note.

Or make multi-family easier to build by zoning for more of it, making the application process more stream lined and reducing the risk of appeals. Why piss off suburban home-buyers to make multi-family more affordable. Supply constraints just raise housing costs in general, which isn't good for anyone.