Housing Choices - where you choose to live

[suburb]

Originally Posted by MonctonGoldenFlames

he knows he doesn't have to have grass in his yard right?

He's never complained about it. He probably thinks it is normal (just like people in the burbs think certain things are normal that tower condo folks think odd, and vice versa). I only recognized the issue when visiting for a few days during which time things needed to be done.

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Never thought about the lawnmower issue. Since most (all?) townhouses in Calgary would have a front lawn, I guess that's what people have to do? Of course not having a lawn in front is one answer, but one that hasn't been done in Calgary as far as I know. I suppose another solution is to hire someone to mow all the front lawns.

I wasn't sure what you meant about not being able to have a BBQ without making a mess.

I meant people tracking through the house - but that is a minor matter I recognize. There are all types, and some people like to keep the riff-raff outside - LOL!

Anyway, just read this article about life in Toronto condos / some of the types moving in there. Thought it was interesting.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/02...t-of-the-city/

Some excerpts:

--
The North York mother of three school-aged children has just bought a one-bedroom, $500,000 condominium at the New Residences of Yorkville Plaza, Camrost Felcorp’s 32-storey, 500-unit tower on the site of Toronto’s renowned Four Seasons Hotel. When it’s complete in 2014, Ms. Zemelman plans to use it as her weekend getaway so she and her husband can have some alone time or entertain friends on their terrace.
--
With hundreds of brand new condominium suites up for grabs in Yorkville, developers are banking on people such as the Zemelmans to snap them up; the purchases will afford them an exciting entry into Toronto’s growth.
--

[DizzyEdge]

Regarding the need for separation to allow access to and from a backyard:

I thought I'd do a little math. If you have a fairly dense block of SFH on 25 ft wide lots, you might end up with 20 houses on one side of a block. Lets say 5ft of that is space between you and the next house, so 20%. In my hood (up the north hill) I've seen empty 25 ft lots selling for $200k, so that walkway land, front to back, is $40k worth of land, and x 20 houses that's $800k of access space. That's alotta cash. I wonder if a public access passageway (to the alley) every 4-6 units would be an interesting compromise.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Regarding the need for separation to allow access to and from a backyard:

I thought I'd do a little math. If you have a fairly dense block of SFH on 25 ft wide lots, you might end up with 20 houses on one side of a block. Lets say 5ft of that is space between you and the next house, so 20%. In my hood (up the north hill) I've seen empty 25 ft lots selling for $200k, so that walkway land, front to back, is $40k worth of land, and x 20 houses that's $800k of access space. That's alotta cash. I wonder if a public access passageway (to the alley) every 4-6 units would be an interesting compromise.

That is exactly how townhouse projects work. They put in an access every six units or so (IIRC) to allow for things like that.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by fusili

I think what Calgary needs is a lot more townhouses. They achieve the scale, feel and compatibility in a single detached neighbourhood (front entrances, lower height, back yards, rear garages), while also increasing density. The floor plates are smaller, but you can add a third storey and get 3 (or even 4) bedrooms in them. If Calgary really wants to densify, allowing townhouses in older suburbs is a huge step forward.

I cant wait to see this happen when it does. It will actually give the feeling of a completely new city within the city. Id like to see a good balance of single family and townhouse /rowhouse stuff in these existing communities.

They could really push the boundaries on the design as well. If they could centre these new townhouses around existing schools; even better.

In a perfect world (in my opinion) The price point should be around 230,000 - 260,000 and they should feature 3 bedrooms, a living room, and a basement family room. The bedrooms should all be quite average.....10' x 10', and the maximum square footage of the units should not be too large. I find if you provide a nicely sized play room for families, the bedrooms can be quite small.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Regarding the need for separation to allow access to and from a backyard:

I thought I'd do a little math. If you have a fairly dense block of SFH on 25 ft wide lots, you might end up with 20 houses on one side of a block. Lets say 5ft of that is space between you and the next house, so 20%. In my hood (up the north hill) I've seen empty 25 ft lots selling for $200k, so that walkway land, front to back, is $40k worth of land, and x 20 houses that's $800k of access space. That's alotta cash. I wonder if a public access passageway (to the alley) every 4-6 units would be an interesting compromise.

Yeah - certainly ... or perhaps sets of 7-8 units forming a square around a shared courtyard with a 'community garden' - or a part that can be booked for gatherings. There would be one or two access points. Another alternate with this arrangement or the other you described, is to have some units with a backyard and others with no backyard. That would make the backyards for those who want them larger, and no backyards for those who don't want or need them. Prices would reflect this of course. Bottom line with this type of thing is that there would be increased diversity within a complex - something we don't get enough of in urban as well as suburban projects.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Regarding the need for separation to allow access to and from a backyard:

I thought I'd do a little math. If you have a fairly dense block of SFH on 25 ft wide lots, you might end up with 20 houses on one side of a block. Lets say 5ft of that is space between you and the next house, so 20%. In my hood (up the north hill) I've seen empty 25 ft lots selling for $200k, so that walkway land, front to back, is $40k worth of land, and x 20 houses that's $800k of access space. That's alotta cash. I wonder if a public access passageway (to the alley) every 4-6 units would be an interesting compromise.

You can get away without the spacing, if you design the units to sit above the garage and have access though the garage to the back yard, using the main level as a garage/storage level and the levels above it as living space, this causes slight issue with access from the living levels to the back yard though

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

You can get away without the spacing, if you design the units to sit above the garage and have access though the garage to the back yard, using the main level as a garage/storage level and the levels above it as living space, this causes slight issue with access from the living levels to the back yard though

Perhaps a half sunk basement/garage to reduce the issues?
Or, some sort of split, so on the left is the garage/backyard access is at grade, and on the right is the basement that is half sunk, also meaning the right side of the split will be a 1/2 story above grade, perhaps leadiing out to an elevated deck.

[kw5150]

I dont know how any young, single person / couple without kids would ever want to live out in the burbs. Loving inner city life in the valley by the river!

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by kw5150

I dont know how any young, single person / couple without kids would ever want to live out in the burbs. Loving inner city life in the valley by the river!

People with toys and hobbies that require power tools.

Kinda hard to store a 17' canoe and work on a vintage car in a condo.

[You Need A Thneed]

There are plenty of reasons why anyone might want to live in the burbs. Being Young/single only removes some of the reasons why living in the inner city doesn't work.

[hulkrogan]

I personally still love the smaller SFH close to downtown approach. I got a bike GPS for my birthday and I've been playing with it on my commute. This week all of my trips to and from work have been 8 minutes.

Yet I get home, and have a 47.5' lot to dink around in, and an oversize garage for tools and toys. My living space is about half of what I would have gotten out in the suburbs for the same money, if not less.

For sure it creates challenges, and I often look at my friends houses in the suburbs with envy when we are playing mini-stick hockey in the basement with their kids (my basement is half crawl space and half 6' ceilings, a laundry and storage room... that's it). Right now if I have 2 kids they are going to have to share a room until I either move or add onto the house, a constant source of future-stress for me. We'll see how it plays out, but I REALLY want to make it work. I love walking to restaurants, the market, downtown, the zoo. I love that my car sees about 8000km a year now. I do know it's going to get harder eventually though, and we'll see if I can stick it out. I definitely can not afford a larger house in the same area, and I often wonder if I'd ever be able to afford to move back if I left.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by h0twired

People with toys and hobbies that require power tools.

Kinda hard to store a 17' canoe and work on a vintage car in a condo.

We cant afford a house so that is just our reality and we are doing just fine! We renovated my entire condo with the power tools we have, and rented the ones we didn't.

Of course condo living is not for everyone, I just prefer it to having a 500,000 dollar debt.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I personally still love the smaller SFH close to downtown approach. I got a bike GPS for my birthday and I've been playing with it on my commute. This week all of my trips to and from work have been 8 minutes.

Yet I get home, and have a 47.5' lot to dink around in, and an oversize garage for tools and toys. My living space is about half of what I would have gotten out in the suburbs for the same money, if not less.

For sure it creates challenges, and I often look at my friends houses in the suburbs with envy when we are playing mini-stick hockey in the basement with their kids (my basement is half crawl space and half 6' ceilings, a laundry and storage room... that's it). Right now if I have 2 kids they are going to have to share a room until I either move or add onto the house, a constant source of future-stress for me. We'll see how it plays out, but I REALLY want to make it work. I love walking to restaurants, the market, downtown, the zoo. I love that my car sees about 8000km a year now. I do know it's going to get harder eventually though, and we'll see if I can stick it out. I definitely can not afford a larger house in the same area, and I often wonder if I'd ever be able to afford to move back if I left.

Dont sweat it man. Half of Canadians grew up sharing a bedroom with their siblings at some point. Just do the bunk bed route. If the house feels small, just take them out to play more often in the parks!

Believe me, you will have more stress if you think that the creditors will come take everything if you lose your job and are living beyond your means. I am actually hoping that we end up in a small house on a small lot somewhere inner city, but not holding my breath if it never happens. I love how walkable everything is right now at this point in my life, even if we have to live in a condo. I actually feel safer in a condo anyway.

[kw5150]

Im sorry if I come across as an a-hole sometimes regarding inner city living. I really just find it better than where I always used to live in the burbs. It does come with struggles, but I guess I prefer it to driving everywhere. I also like the fact the I am so close to the river and can walk down anytime. I am 7 blocks from the river. Its funny that I find that to be so close. When i was younger I never would have walked that far.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Of course condo living is not for everyone, I just prefer it to having a 500,000 dollar debt.

Originally Posted by kw5150

Believe me, you will have more stress if you think that the creditors will come take everything if you lose your job and are living beyond your means.

This 'myth' seems quite pervasive, and it is blatantly a false inference. Not advocating for one or the other (noting, as several have, that there are many variables at play), it is important to note that housing in the burbs is much cheaper than in the inner city. KY's comparison above is unfair, as I highly doubt (in fact know) that he doesn't have 2,800sf currently (a $500K mortgage would mean a $600K home plus/minus). Generally speaking, even when you look at condos only, the premium can be 30% to 60% (and it can be much higher even) for going inner city, so if anything, the opposite of KY's inference would be reality. Inner city living would mean higher rent per sf and higher mortgage per sf. Period.

Further to the actual cost of housing proper, it is also a myth that it is more expensive from an overall perspective. Gas is only more if you need to drive more (which might actually be the case, I don't doubt) but child care is way more, food is way more, etc. You can get a $5.99 buffet at an Indian restaurant in the NE, but fat chance in the inner city. You can find child care in the $750-800 range in the burbs (perhaps only $600 for home care set-ups) but you start at $1,100 in downtown. These are just two examples and are meant to be indicators other other things (grocery prices can also vary in the same way, as another example).

[DizzyEdge]

There's nothing wrong with the burbs per se, it would just be ideal if they replicated the sort of

|....................SFH.....................| Multifamily | Retail strip | Multifamily |....................SFH....................|

like the Hillhurst/Sunnyside area.

If every suburban community was a like a small town, particularly the ones along major transit nodes, how awesome would that be? I'd ride the train all day saturday just to see what's up in each one. Also people who tend to go for small towns outside of the city might rethink that idea if they could find something similar within the city limits.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

This 'myth' seems quite pervasive, and it is blatantly a false inference. Not advocating for one or the other (noting, as several have, that there are many variables at play), it is important to note that housing in the burbs is much cheaper than in the inner city. KY's comparison above is unfair, as I highly doubt (in fact know) that he doesn't have 2,800sf currently (a $500K mortgage would mean a $600K home plus/minus). Generally speaking, even when you look at condos only, the premium can be 30% to 60% (and it can be much higher even) for going inner city, so if anything, the opposite of KY's inference would be reality. Inner city living would mean higher rent per sf and higher mortgage per sf. Period.

Further to the actual cost of housing proper, it is also a myth that it is more expensive from an overall perspective. Gas is only more if you need to drive more (which might actually be the case, I don't doubt) but child care is way more, food is way more, etc. You can get a $5.99 buffet at an Indian restaurant in the NE, but fat chance in the inner city. You can find child care in the $750-800 range in the burbs (perhaps only $600 for home care set-ups) but you start at $1,100 in downtown. These are just two examples and are meant to be indicators other other things (grocery prices can also vary in the same way, as another example).

Disagree. The two largest expenditures for any household are housing and transportation.

A very large study was done in the US that looked at the largest 48 metropolitan regions and used Census Tract Data to calculate average combined costs of housing and transportation in different areas of the city. Across the board, the combined costs of housing and transportation were always more in suburban areas than in inner cities. This especially holds true for the lowest income families. What you save on the house, gets more than eaten up by increased transportation costs.

Check out a summary of the study here: http://www.cnt.org/repository/heavy_load_10_06.pdf

[fusili]

Continuing on the above point- the largest problem is that inner city housing is more expensive, but saves you on transportation costs. However, when you try and qualify for a mortgage in order to take advantage of lower transportation costs, the bank doesn't consider the transportation savings, so you end up living farther out, but having a larger expenditure burden. This is known as "drive till you qualify."

However, there are ways this can be addressed. There is something called a "location efficient mortgage" where census data on transportation expenditures are calculated, and lower transportation costs are considered additional income when you apply for the mortgage. Fannie Mae had a pilot project on this in Portland, Seattle, San Francisco and I think Chicago, but then the recession hit and that sort of died out. It is a great idea though. I mean, if you are saving 1000s/year in transportation because of your housing location, shouldn't that be considered with the mortgage calculation.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by fusili

Continuing on the above point- the largest problem is that inner city housing is more expensive

Of course, if you had more innercity multifamily housing, the prices would go down. This brings up a point I have wondered about, what sort of saturation could exist while still making it profitable to build? I often have the thought (not necessarily based on anything concrete) that the boom and bust cycle creates companies who don't bother until the booms, and that if the cycle was more constant, you might get cheaper innercity condos. Curious if there's any truth to that, and I'm also not sure if I explained it properly.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by suburb

This 'myth' seems quite pervasive, and it is blatantly a false inference. Not advocating for one or the other (noting, as several have, that there are many variables at play), it is important to note that housing in the burbs is much cheaper than in the inner city. KY's comparison above is unfair, as I highly doubt (in fact know) that he doesn't have 2,800sf currently (a $500K mortgage would mean a $600K home plus/minus). Generally speaking, even when you look at condos only, the premium can be 30% to 60% (and it can be much higher even) for going inner city, so if anything, the opposite of KY's inference would be reality. Inner city living would mean higher rent per sf and higher mortgage per sf. Period.

Further to the actual cost of housing proper, it is also a myth that it is more expensive from an overall perspective. Gas is only more if you need to drive more (which might actually be the case, I don't doubt) but child care is way more, food is way more, etc. You can get a $5.99 buffet at an Indian restaurant in the NE, but fat chance in the inner city. You can find child care in the $750-800 range in the burbs (perhaps only $600 for home care set-ups) but you start at $1,100 in downtown. These are just two examples and are meant to be indicators other other things (grocery prices can also vary in the same way, as another example).

Housing: Im not talking about better price per square foot. Im talking about a cheaper mortgage and car bills....period. There is no arguing it.

Transport: I bought a 2003 acura hatchback to get me around for $6000.00. I haven't had to do a thing to it in over a year. I barely drive it. If I was commuting 40+ kilometres every day, I probably wouldnt want to drive an older, cheaper car. I would want something 100% new(ish) and reliable and this would cost more money. I currently have no car loan at all. Lots of extra cash to go around.