Quote:
Originally Posted by trueviking
I'm not really sure what your argument is....are you saying we shouldn't build rapid transit because nobody wants to live in higher density development?....if it is, thats simply not true.
are you saying rapid transit shouldnt be built because there is too much multi-family on the market right now and that will never change?
are you saying there are no developers wanting to build multi-family?...because thats clearly not true.
are you saying that mutli-family construction is decreasing?....because its not.
Are you saying that the City should not create the conditions to promote higher density growth?
are you saying the City shouldn't long term plan for the future and only consider immediate real estate conditions?
absorption may be down, but its because there is far more multi-family being built, not because there is less demand....that doesn't mean the city should not continue to promote this higher density growth...maybe it takes a bit longer to get through a spike in the market, but these are long term plans....this is not about immediate conditions in the market, its about planning for the future....who knows what the market will be in 3 or 5 years when that one leg of transit is complete....the goal is to make the conditions to promote better growth....
you've seen how long it takes to get transit done...we cant say, oh no, we cant build transit today because there is a glut of multi-family on the market right now and then spring into action a year from now when its levelled out...this is a long term investment, not a reaction to immediate market conditions, which clearly shows a steady increase in multi-family growth, without reason to suggest a reversal....just becasue too much has been built at this precise moment in time doesnt mean we shouldnt plan for more.
Developers have been lining up to attach themselves to this one meagre transit line....its a very good investment for the city....one line has a major development under construction and five more in the planning stages with five different large, private developers.
I know the architect of the fort rouge project and they are quite happy with sales and are working hard on the next phases and the next development....but it will be many years in the making.
what money is the government giving these developers as you claim?
 |
Are you under the impression that a TDA like Centreventure doesn't exist solely to get another DRGP-like program in place? As soon as that is approved, you'll see the programs start coming online. Otherwise, there's no need for it - as you say, the market can well handle itself. Look for these TOD sites to become TIF zones in the future.
And what I'm saying is that you're missing an entire component of this rapid transit line in it's configuration, and that's demand. Your best argument for demand - and no surprise, you're an architect and not a developer - is that the last ten years have brought an increase. You're rebutting a point about softening demand by making assertions about straw-men developers and their reactions to numbers that haven't even been absorbed in the market yet. That's because construction has a long time line and lags significantly. Yes, demand is slowing, and Yes, you're going to see reactions to that, and it's going to come in the form of less development. I don't really care that there are developers lined up to extract huge fees from other investors by pushing projects they're ambivalent about the demand for, I care about what kind of demand *actually* exists; if I want a report about the success of the Fort Rouge Yards, you can bet the person whose opinion matters least is the architect. Just like if I care about the build quality, the last person's opinion I care about is the developer's. It's more difficult today than it has been in ten years to finance a condo project and that's because the banks actually *do* care about the data - somebody sitting on fifty unsold condo units may not matter to you, but it matters to their bank.
Winnipeg is a city that competes directly with Saskatchewan and Alberta for Immigrants. In the last two years, rather unsuccessfully relative to projection. And equally importantly, we're competing with those same provinces for the natural growth of our own citizens; a game we're also losing. So when we talk about the strength of a market and it's inability to absorb what's already out there, you don't underwrite the assertion that those statistics are meaningless by presenting the fact that
five more projects are on the way and think this is a good thing. CMHC is hinting that Winnipeg is already overbuilt by suggesting in their 2014 projection that inventories will be rising (which they are). Vacancies are up across the board in every single sector - residential, commercial, and industrial. Availability is higher than vacancy and already outside of what the healthy vacancy for a market is, so we're good right now. We don't need anything else. All of this as economic growth projections continue to be revised downward to rates barely pacing inflation.
Planning is great, but there needs to be a hedge here. Since we're already downward trending relative to projections, why wouldn't we be concerned that population may not meet the projected targets? And what if it doesn't? Isn't a line straight down Pembina at least easier to justify than servicing development that doesn't even exist and for where a chance exists it may never? Or at least in a way that's small enough it isn't justifiable any longer?
Nobody is saying don't build the line. What's being said is that the city is getting screwed by a few interests who are better served by some ridiculous layout on an ever-decreasing chance that the city ever projects to accommodate enough people to justify it.
And you're wrong that the multi-family trends don't suggest a reversal. Every single economic number available to us suggests the complete opposite. In fact, the trends have been reversing since Q3 2013. I don't know where you get your data, or if you can't read it, or if you're selective in your interpretation of it, but the broader data tells us we've got plenty and will continue to have plenty for a long time. You don't just keep building because you're planning for the future; you'll drive down values in a business that already exists on razor thin margins. In a city like Winnipeg with its unique issues with construction costs due to competing labour forces and total isolation, you control the supply of units to almost a just-in-time inventory system or you risk killing margins entirely.
I know you don't care about developers making money - you've said as much. But that doesn't mean economies don't care...
Prev
Linear Mode
