Housing Choices - where you choose to live

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

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.

I really hope we start creating more Mardo Loops and Bridgelands all over the city. I really think townhomes are what we are lacking as well for the people who want a garage and back yard. Would there be any value for each condo to have a double garage workshop on site for people to do projects?? Or a community garage? The garage in the condo is probably a liability thing....but trying to look for solutions to the good points people are raising. Although, in my older condo, people dont seem to care if I change my brakes now and then in the common garage...

[suburb]

Originally Posted by fusili

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

1. The study did not normalize on a per sf basis and rather bulks all census data for a given area, which is a fatal flaw in most such reports. I already highlighted this as a flaw in KY's thinking, but surprisingly you didn't catch on and provided a study that ignores this basic point.

2. Additionally, you need to looks at the details such as what it looks like 5-10 miles (8-16km) miles out as opposed to the US cases talking about 30-40 (48-64km) miles out.

From the report, "at some distance, generally 12 to 15 miles, the increase in transportation costs outweighs the savings on housing." 12 to 15 miles is 19-24km! That's way out there man - way beyond our suburban cities!

So let's say that at about 22km out from the core (which is way further than the average of our suburbs) the costs look like a wash - when you look at the details you'll find that at that distance, you probably get 50-100% more sf for all things even (certainly 100% when you include basements) for the same price. When you look at the subset, IE even sf, the charts would look much different - but of course, self authored reports such as this don't provide all the raw data.

If you look at the four quadrant chart with housing+ costs on Y and transportation costs on X, the ones falling into the low-low quadrant are not inner city in the Calgary context at all - rather they are 16-19km from the core!

The absolute BEST visual for this point is the map of Chicago where everything in *white* is in the low housing and low transportation quadrant. Note that Chicago is a lot bigger than Calgary. In fact, the inner city is *flush* with areas coloured RED. You can read the map yourself to see what that means - and it is not good!

Originally Posted by kw5150

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

Actually, there is arguing it. See the report Fusili posted for the details. While it had flaws (like not comparing like to like) if was still helpful (like pointing out suburbs - as opposed to commuter communities - are cheaper relative to the inner city when counting housing plus transportation).

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by suburb

1. The study did not normalize on a per sf basis, which is a fatal flaw in most such reports. I already highlighted this as a flaw in KY's thinking, but surprisingly you didn't catch on and provided a study that ignores this basic point.

2. Additionally, you need to looks at the details such as what it looks like 5-10 miles (8-16km) miles out as opposed to the US cases talking about 30-40 (48-64km) miles out.

From the report, "at some distance, generally 12 to 15 miles, the increase in transportation costs outweighs the savings on housing." 12 to 15 miles is 19-24km! That's way out there man - way beyond our suburban cities!

So let's say that at about 22km out from the core (which is way further than the average of our suburbs) the costs look like a wash - when you look at the details you'll find that at that distance, you probably get 50-100% more sf for all things even (certainly 100% when you include basements) for the same price. When you look at the subset, IE even sf, the charts would look much different - but of course, self authored reports such as this don't provide all the raw data.

If you look at the four quadrant chart with housing+ costs on Y and transportation costs on X, the ones falling into the low-low quadrant are not inner city in the Calgary context at all - rather they are 16-19km from the core!

The absolute BEST visual for this point is the map of Chicago where everything in *white* is in the low housing and low transportation quadrant. Note that Chicago is a lot bigger than Calgary. In fact, the inner city is *flush* with areas coloured RED. You can read the map yourself to see what that means - and it is not good!

Where did you get your planning degree?

[suburb]

Originally Posted by kw5150

Where did you get your planning degree?

Stay on topic KY - we already get too many off topic posts.

[You Need A Thneed]

Regardless of what studies say, I know without a doubt that I myself could not possibly save money by living in the inner city with my family.

I don't think that I'm alone either.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by kw5150

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.

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...

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

1. The study did not normalize on a per sf basis and rather bulks all census data for a given area, which is a fatal flaw in most such reports. I already highlighted this as a flaw in KY's thinking, but surprisingly you didn't catch on and provided a study that ignores this basic point.

2. Additionally, you need to looks at the details such as what it looks like 5-10 miles (8-16km) miles out as opposed to the US cases talking about 30-40 (48-64km) miles out.

From the report, "at some distance, generally 12 to 15 miles, the increase in transportation costs outweighs the savings on housing." 12 to 15 miles is 19-24km! That's way out there man - way beyond our suburban cities!

So let's say that at about 22km out from the core (which is way further than the average of our suburbs) the costs look like a wash - when you look at the details you'll find that at that distance, you probably get 50-100% more sf for all things even (certainly 100% when you include basements) for the same price. When you look at the subset, IE even sf, the charts would look much different - but of course, self authored reports such as this don't provide all the raw data.

If you look at the four quadrant chart with housing+ costs on Y and transportation costs on X, the ones falling into the low-low quadrant are not inner city in the Calgary context at all - rather they are 16-19km from the core!

The absolute BEST visual for this point is the map of Chicago where everything in *white* is in the low housing and low transportation quadrant. Note that Chicago is a lot bigger than Calgary. In fact, the inner city is *flush* with areas coloured RED. You can read the map yourself to see what that means - and it is not good!



Actually, there is arguing it. See the report Fusili posted for the details. While it had flaws (like not comparing like to like) if was still helpful (like pointing out suburbs - as opposed to commuter communities - are cheaper relative to the inner city when counting housing plus transportation).

While the study did not normalize on a per sf basis (data which isn't available at that scale), it does point out some very general costs associated with transportation.

The biggest problem with using cost per square foot is that it does not account for marginal utility. Would you rather have a $500/sf unit that is 1500sf, or a $100/sf unit that is 50 000sf. Sure, the cost per sf is lower, but what is the use of the space? Every incremental increase in sf decreases in marginal value (law of diminishing returns). Sure it is a low cost per sf, but what are you going to do with 50 000sf (obviously an exaggeration). I say you just wasted $4.25 million dollars on space you will never use.

The problem with most suburban housing is that it is overbuilt in size. You get homebuilders selling you on the cost per sf, but never any recognition that some space just isn't worth it. Trust me, I grew up in a household of 5 in a suburban house. There was always, always, a few rooms never in use. We had a family room, a dining room, a kitchen and a living room (plus an additional living room in the basement). Three of those could have been eliminated, and we would have been fine.

[polishavenger]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Regardless of what studies say, I know without a doubt that I myself could not possibly save money by living in the inner city with my family.

I don't think that I'm alone either.

I dont think its a contraversial point to say that all things being equal, that is house size, lot size, etc. living in Calgary's inner city is more expensive. Thats simple supply and demand.

The only point I would like to weigh in on is the equitable sharing of the operating and capital costs of the various built forms in this city. There is no doubt that low density housing is far more expensive to support at the same service level due to more road requirements, longer transit trips, more area to cover for cops and paramedics, additional serwer lines to maintain etc. What I would like to see is a property tax adjustment for density that would reflect this. If you live in multifamily anywhere in the city, you should pay less tax, and if you live SFH, your share should be higher. I dont think there is an argument against that except for simply not wanting to pay your fair share.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Regardless of what studies say, I know without a doubt that I myself could not possibly save money by living in the inner city with my family.

I don't think that I'm alone either.

Absolutely agree with you. That was one of the flaws in the study.

1. The average burb in Calgary is much closer than the average one in Chicago (60km out is not a burb here). When looking at places that were Calgary burb distances from the core, they came up cheapest when combining transportation and housing costs, meaning, moving closer to the core is more expensive than at Calgary burb distances.

2. They didn't account for sf and instead used census data for entire neighbourhoods. The average burb probably has residences that are twice the average residence in the core - so even at over 20km out where the study said it was 'even stephen', the burb house was the same total housing and transport cost for *twice the house* as inner city.

Originally Posted by polishavenger

The only point I would like to weigh in on is the equitable sharing of the operating and capital costs of the various built forms in this city. There is no doubt that low density housing is far more expensive to support at the same service level due to more road requirements, longer transit trips, more area to cover for cops and paramedics, additional serwer lines to maintain etc. What I would like to see is a property tax adjustment for density that would reflect this. If you live in multifamily anywhere in the city, you should pay less tax, and if you live SFH, your share should be higher. I dont think there is an argument against that except for simply not wanting to pay your fair share.

I would agree with that. Multi-family, irrespective of where in the city, should get a break on property tax.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by kw5150

I really hope we start creating more Mardo Loops and Bridgelands all over the city. I really think townhomes are what we are lacking as well for the people who want a garage and back yard. Would there be any value for each condo to have a double garage workshop on site for people to do projects?? Or a community garage? The garage in the condo is probably a liability thing....but trying to look for solutions to the good points people are raising. Although, in my older condo, people dont seem to care if I change my brakes now and then in the common garage...

well see if you had a lot more multifamily being built, and not just aimed at 'young professionals', perhaps you would end up interesting custom projects like that.
Also agree about the Mardaloops and Bridgelands, as that would achieve:
- the ability to live in SFH or lower priced multifamily, while still enjoying a taste of the walkable amenities that the innercity offers
- would increase density in each community, so each is 'doing their share' so to speak
- that increased density, although perhaps a very small area compared to the area of the whole community, could be a seed for future densification in each community, rather than mostly just the residential around the core having that happen.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by fusili

The biggest problem with using cost per square foot is that it does not account for marginal utility. Would you rather have a $500/sf unit that is 1500sf, or a $100/sf unit that is 50 000sf. Sure, the cost per sf is lower, but what is the use of the space?

That is just stupid fusili. Use numbers that are realistic. Average in the core at 1,000 sf and average suburb at 2,000 sf. Using your report with these reasonable averages (they'll be off, but not out to lunch like your 50,000sf suggestion) a 2,000sf home 15km away would be cheaper (including transportation costs) than a 1,000sf condo in the core. So when you're talking to people with families (and there are many here) where it is let's say four people (2+2) they can't really do it in 1,000sf in the core. They would need 2,000sf in the core, and that would be ridiculously expensive.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

That is just stupid fusili. Use numbers that are realistic. Average in the core at 1,000 sf and average suburb at 2,000 sf. Using your report with these reasonable averages (they'll be off, but not out to lunch like your 50,000sf suggestion) a 2,000sf home 15km away would be cheaper (including transportation costs) than a 1,000sf condo in the core. So when you're talking to people with families (and there are many here) where it is let's say four people (2+2) they can't really do it in 1,000sf in the core. They would need 2,000sf in the core, and that would be ridiculously expensive.

The numbers were used to make a point. They were intentionally unrealistic. Sometimes exaggeration is the best way to make a point.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by polishavenger

I dont think its a contraversial point to say that all things being equal, that is house size, lot size, etc. living in Calgary's inner city is more expensive. Thats simple supply and demand.

The only point I would like to weigh in on is the equitable sharing of the operating and capital costs of the various built forms in this city. There is no doubt that low density housing is far more expensive to support at the same service level due to more road requirements, longer transit trips, more area to cover for cops and paramedics, additional serwer lines to maintain etc. What I would like to see is a property tax adjustment for density that would reflect this. If you live in multifamily anywhere in the city, you should pay less tax, and if you live SFH, your share should be higher. I dont think there is an argument against that except for simply not wanting to pay your fair share.

Problem is, this doesn't exist. Until we have a price structure that actually reflects costs, we will have a distorted housing market. I live on a block with about 400 units. Why do I pay the same for street cleaning as someone who lives on a similar sized block with 20 units?

[Rusty van Reddick]

I hate this thread, but I love the sound of "Mardo Loop."

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by suburb

1. The study did not normalize on a per sf basis and rather bulks all census data for a given area, which is a fatal flaw in most such reports. I already highlighted this as a flaw in KY's thinking, but surprisingly you didn't catch on and provided a study that ignores this basic point.

2. Additionally, you need to looks at the details such as what it looks like 5-10 miles (8-16km) miles out as opposed to the US cases talking about 30-40 (48-64km) miles out.

From the report, "at some distance, generally 12 to 15 miles, the increase in transportation costs outweighs the savings on housing." 12 to 15 miles is 19-24km! That's way out there man - way beyond our suburban cities!

So let's say that at about 22km out from the core (which is way further than the average of our suburbs) the costs look like a wash - when you look at the details you'll find that at that distance, you probably get 50-100% more sf for all things even (certainly 100% when you include basements) for the same price. When you look at the subset, IE even sf, the charts would look much different - but of course, self authored reports such as this don't provide all the raw data.

If you look at the four quadrant chart with housing+ costs on Y and transportation costs on X, the ones falling into the low-low quadrant are not inner city in the Calgary context at all - rather they are 16-19km from the core!

The absolute BEST visual for this point is the map of Chicago where everything in *white* is in the low housing and low transportation quadrant. Note that Chicago is a lot bigger than Calgary. In fact, the inner city is *flush* with areas coloured RED. You can read the map yourself to see what that means - and it is not good!



Actually, there is arguing it. See the report Fusili posted for the details. While it had flaws (like not comparing like to like) if was still helpful (like pointing out suburbs - as opposed to commuter communities - are cheaper relative to the inner city when counting housing plus transportation).

While 22km will get you to most parts of the city from DT it won't get you to the far SE 22km gets you to Douglasdale, Cranston, the South Hospital, and Senton are all but 30km from DT

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

I hate this thread, but I love the sound of "Mardo Loop."

Aha, I initially typed Mardo Loop in my comment, didn't realize KW inserted it into my conciousness.

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by fusili

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.

This is a pretty interesting idea. Does anyone know if banks in Canada have considered this? Or, after the sub-prime crisis, are banks pretty gun-shy on trying any kind of new mortgage?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

This is a pretty interesting idea. Does anyone know if banks in Canada have considered this? Or, after the sub-prime crisis, are banks pretty gun-shy on trying any kind of new mortgage?

I would guess gun-shy.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by fusili

The numbers were used to make a point. They were intentionally unrealistic. Sometimes exaggeration is the best way to make a point.

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

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

While 22km will get you to most parts of the city from DT it won't get you to the far SE 22km gets you to Douglasdale, Cranston, the South Hospital, and Senton are all but 30km from DT

Not as a bird flies, but approach 25km by road. Irrespective, the flaws with the report were two fold (the other being not normalizing for size of accommodations), which I've already articulated - so I won't repeat in detail again. You will note, however, after I mentioned 22km as an example, I added the following "(which is way further than the average of our suburbs)". Additionally, I'm on record as suggesting the SE South of 22x should be considered commuter community as opposed to suburban, going as far as suggesting that LRT leg should charge $10 per trip, appropriate for such a commuter community.

I'm actually quite the reasonable guy - but I'm also a little more thoughtful about the plethora of variables and considerations that individuals and families need to respond to. Some of those folks in these 'debates' present very shallow assessments - and end up sounding like Cory Mack talking about the peace bridge.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by MichaelS

This is a pretty interesting idea. Does anyone know if banks in Canada have considered this? Or, after the sub-prime crisis, are banks pretty gun-shy on trying any kind of new mortgage?

Banks are much more thoughtful about their assessment and thus do not equate two properties when one is 2,500sf and the other is 800sf. Generally speaking, bank assessments are based on market value - supply and demand, adjusted for specifics relating to quality / condition, etc.