Great Canadian Skyline Thread II

[suburbanite]

You don't expropriate at assessed value. If they're holding out for a high-density valuation, and an independent third-party appraiser values it as high density, is the city going to buy out the land valued for 200,000 SF of density and then sell it to someone who wants to build 50,000 SF?

Probably not a very favourable outcome for most constituents.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

You don't expropriate at assessed value. If they're holding out for a high-density valuation, and an independent third-party appraiser values it as high density, is the city going to buy out the land valued for 200,000 SF of density and then sell it to someone who wants to build 50,000 SF?

Probably not a very favourable outcome for most constituents.

Why would a 2000sf lot be valued for 200000sf? Nobody is going to build a 100 floor pencil tower in Hull.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by biguc

People who own these lots camp on them waiting to hit the lottery by selling out for millions. In the mean time, they get a small income from a property that usually doesn't pay much property taxes. Why wouldn't they wait? It is, therefore, not economically feasible to develop these lots with anything but towers.

I hardly see how a city would bankrupt itself by buying these lots at their assessed value, then selling them for the same price on the condition that the purchaser develop them. That would make a city money.

These forums are too hard on guys that often spend decades to assemble ownership. These guys are key to development. They do this to flip to developers who have no patience to assemble ownership for development. It's not their fault if the market isn't quite there yet to attract the attention of developers/investors

I heard this for years in the Hamilton forum that a couple large land holding companies were inhibiting downtown development. Look at those properties now. Now, the discussion is over the towers not being tall enough.

In the end, a lowrise building for instant gratification on the edge of a high density downtown makes little sense and the forum will debate why the development is so small. It happen on UT all the time. The temp LCBO on the corner of King and Spadina nearly overloaded the server.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by biguc

People who own these lots camp on them waiting to hit the lottery by selling out for millions. In the mean time, they get a small income from a property that usually doesn't pay much property taxes. Why wouldn't they wait? It is, therefore, not economically feasible to develop these lots with anything but towers.

I hardly see how a city would bankrupt itself by buying these lots at their assessed value, then selling them for the same price on the condition that the purchaser develop them. That would make a city money.

Cities need to get tougher on such properties via the property tax regime. It's too easy to rake in parking revenue while paying a pittance in local tax.

In Hamilton there was a guy who bought a house across from a downtown hospital, and wanted to level it to create a few parking spaces (as if the city does not have enough in the core ) He was not allowed to do that, and if I recall he raised a big stink about his rights as a property owner. This guy was a consistent thorn in the city's backside about issues like that too.

There's a city policy that prohibits the demolition of buildings to replace them with parking lots, but I don't think they've adjusted the tax policies to make it less attractive to keep the current ones for parking, or to leave them vacant... there are a few plots in the central city that have basically just been sitting empty for years! Like this one right in the heart of the city; and here's another example not very far from that which is a more recent razing and the owners used it for parking briefly before the municipality clamped down.

[biguc]

Yeah, it's bonkers that the city assesses and taxes these properties at a certain value, but then they sell for far more. Makes no sense.

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

These forums are too hard on guys that often spend decades to assemble ownership. These guys are key to development. They do this to flip to developers who have no patience to assemble ownership for development. It's not their fault if the market isn't there to attract development.

I heard this for years in the Hamilton forum that a couple large land holding companies were inhibiting downtown development. Look at those properties now. Now, the discussion is over the towers not being tall enough.

Well, we started talking about this in the context of not building towers. I'm used to you gnashing your teeth at towers. If we want more granular development--and we should--we should do something about it.

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm dissatisfied with the overall quality of tower development, in particular, large scale transit oriented intensification that are primarily single use and relies heavily on the existing community's amenities which aren't built for increase usage. This is why I'm a defender of Cityplace despite the generic layout and window wall towers. It is a complete residential neighbourhood.

IMO, nearly all developments in Toronto represents overbuilding whether it's a midrise or skyscraper. The skyscrapers get the most attention on SSP; most aren't mentioned at all.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Cities need to get tougher on such properties via the property tax regime. It's too easy to rake in parking revenue while paying a pittance in local tax.

In Hamilton there was a guy who bought a house across from a downtown hospital, and wanted to level it to create a few parking spaces (as if the city does not have enough in the core ) He was not allowed to do that, and if I recall he raised a big stink about his rights as a property owner. This guy was a consistent thorn in the city's backside about issues like that too.

There's a city policy that prohibits the demolition of buildings to replace them with parking lots, but I don't think they've adjusted the tax policies to make it less attractive to keep the current ones for parking, or to leave them vacant... there are a few plots in the central city that have basically just been sitting empty for years! Like this one right in the heart of the city; and here's another example not very far from that which is a more recent razing and the owners used it for parking briefly before the municipality clamped down.

This is basically my view as well. I very strongly dislike appeals to "the market" as a way to choose our desired outcomes. Markets are tools we use to achieve desired outcomes, not to determine what our desired outcomes should be. It's very similar to the naturalistic fallacy in which people state how things "should" be based on whether or not they're "natural", but just replacing nature with markets.

If the market doesn't achieve the outcomes we want, then we should use something else. Either we alter the way our markets are currently constructed using new governing policies or we use a non-market process.

[J.OT13]

Lincoln Fields Station, from Daniel Innes on Twitter. Ottawa skyline from Lincoln Fields looking east.

[WhipperSnapper]

I think most cities have much more progressive policies toward demolition without replacement than they did in the past. That doesn't help the existing vacant plots from another time. They are in decline and, in a growing number of places, rapid decline. Just takes patience.

On a personal note, A parking lot is preferred as it's active usage compared to a weed filled lot.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.31902,-83...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

I'm not sure what a non market process entails for privately held properties. Taxation is still limited to market conditions. You can tax a commercial parking lot operation so that its no longer profitable as a commercial parking lot operation. That doesn't make development anymore desirable if the market and investors to develop aren't there.

[J.OT13]

From Pat on Rail Fans Discord, from Dow's Lake looking north.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I think most cities have much more progressive policies toward demolition without replacement than they did in the past. That doesn't help the existing vacant plots from another time. They are in decline and, in a growing number of places, rapid decline. Just takes patience.

On a personal note, A parking lot is preferred as it's active usage compared to a weed filled lot.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@42.31902,-83...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

I'm not sure what a non market process entails for privately held properties. Taxation is still limited to market conditions. You can tax a commercial parking lot operation so that its no longer profitable as a commercial parking lot operation. That doesn't make development anymore desirable if the market and investors to develop aren't there.

I don't think tax incentives guarantee an outcome, they just encourage the desired outcome in proportion to the size of the incentive. Same thing with subsidies. Currently a lot of jurisdictions tax properties based mainly or solely on the assessed value, but one could just as easily adjust the tax codes to tax certain uses higher than others (this already happens to an extent with residential rates sometimes being different than commercial). Non-market processes wouldn't normally apply to private properties , although subsidies, which can be considered a non-market process depending on the details, can be given to private entities to accomplish certain outcomes.There are also cases in which governments or government-affiliated entities like transit agencies or housing authorities buy and develop properties, sometimes interacting with market dynamics and other times using fully non-market processes.

Every political and economic tool has advantages and disadvantages, but it's important to assess all options in terms of what best accomplishes one's goals. Basic things like changes in land usage within human settlements should never be written off as "infeasible" because of ideological commitments to a particular political or economic program. There are few things any more feasible than the ability for humans to decide on the design and arrangement of human settlements.

Also, I'd personally prefer the weed filled lot because at least you won't have anyone crying over lost parking when it's finally developed and there's no presumably less financial incentive to keep it vacant. Plus it isn't contributing to automobile culture and as many weeds are helpful to pollinators.

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm amused by poor drivers that complain over the loss of surface parking lots and now having to parking in structured parking. I'm a pragmatist. People drive in a city like Toronto that boomed after WW2 and mass transit hasn't kept pace with the explosive growth since. The number of commercial parking spaces has remained stable despite thousands of surface parking spaces replaced with development.

Toronto has offered and may still offer incentives and subsidies, for example, facade beautification in non gentrified areas which really hasn't spurred any beautification. Its still incredibly expensive venture for the property owner which not much reward. It's not likely to increase the chance of attracting Starbucks that raises property values.

Building small scale is only easier for a large developer which wouldn't be interested in it. A small developer/ land holding company still has to find investors to build a line of rowhouses or a lowrise apartment building and its unlikely they will get the preferred rates of larger developers should they actually get an interested party.

Public real estate management companies have a deplorable record developing crown assets. The West Donlands took 40 years after several failed attempts. Municipalities finances across Canada aren't in the best condition after years of downloading costs from senior levels. A for profit developer is not going to be interested in a public/private partnership building a 3 storey, 30 unit building with 6 non market units when the break even mark requires 6 storeys and 60 units. A wholly public partnership can't afford the loss. Strict zoning controls particularly binding the amount of square footage that can be built will impact the market value of the property and open things up for smaller scale profitability. A move such as this will end up in the courts for decades.

The city welcomed any development to erase the hollowed out prewas apartment blocks and rowhouses in the Bronx. What was built would make Okotoks proud. Small developers are building to sell. Building a 3 storey, 30 unit building in a place with triple the average density is not an interim gesture in order to replace a hole in the fabric until such and such a time. It's by no means a terrible gesture. I just would rather hold off until something more appropriate arises. I'm not a believer in better than a parking lot.

Canadian cities are young with growing population. It's not a terrible idea to have these shovel ready lots. These decades old lots from the speculative post war era will eventually all disappear as long as cities adopt policies to prevent demolitions without planned replacements and restricting commercial parking permits . It may take another generation. i'm not bothered by it.-

[Nouvellecosse]

I definitely agree that the current structure of the political and economic systems isn't conducive to the sort of changes many urban enthusiasts advocate for. But I don't think it's true that public real estate development is inherently or necessarily "deplorable" just because of failures in a particular region. At one time Canada was a world leader is public housing prior to the divestment in the 90s, while today the almost entirely private housing sector has been deplorable at solving the housing crisis with the number of under-housed people growing for decades. There are some parts of the world where public housing is extremely common and done successfully for the most part (although everything has pros and cons).

But alas, I'm not advocating for any specific prescription. I just don't accept the particular brand of "pragmatism" that has people forgo creating the type of community they want because the current systemic barriers make it too bothersome.

[Coldrsx]

Avenuer on SRC
https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/forum/threads/edmonton-aerials.24644/page-4#post-1813942

[FrAnKs]

Source : https://www.facebook.com/complexecapitalehelicoptere/photos/pcb.1695610007275842/1695600017276841

[craner]

Will be nice to get that former city center airport land filled-in in Edmonton.
What’s the name - Blatchford ?

[Coldrsx]

^Blatchford. It is finally starting to get some momentum, but is a 20yr + buildout.

[zoomer]

Went for a bike ride today, checked out where the Great Scaper has been taking a lot of his skyline shots, lol. And another one at sea level looking over from the Songhees across the inner harbour to downtown.

View of Victoria from Highrock Park, April 23, 2022 by JohnnyJayEh, on Flickr

View of Victoria from Highrock Park, April 23, 2022 by JohnnyJayEh, on Flickr

Inner Harbour, Victoria BC, April 23, 2022 by JohnnyJayEh, on Flickr

[someone123]

Halifax

Source

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by craner

Will be nice to get that former city center airport land filled-in in Edmonton.

I was thinking of how much of a shame it is that such prime land is soaked up by golf courses.