Housing Choices - where you choose to live

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburb

If you want to increase numbers in the core, accommodations may need to be more thoughtful for seniors. There will be a lot more of them soon! This is a serious comment actually. Seniors are often just fine with less sf, but require additional services (perhaps even once a week organized social programs), accessibility (which is generally fine anyway) and most of all, affordability (which is sometimes the biggest challenge in the core).

The second largest demographic in the Beltline is Seniors, IIRC. Something like 3000 (55+) out of a population of 19K (8K are 25-25)

[kw5150]

The biggest thing is to attempt to separate the seniors from the 20 - 40 crowd. It unfortunate, but seniors never seem to tolerate any kinds of noise or deviance from the condo bylaws. I tried to put a welcome mat in my hallway and I was told it was a safety and aesthetic concern.....haha. Luckily, the senoirs in my building live 5 floors above.

[Radley77]

Not sure exactly where to put this info. I found some 2011 information from Alberta Health Services on health inspection orders issued to illegal drug operations. I put this in an online map here:

http://batchgeo.com/map/7db31f07a9a2...ed71a499b64be4

Anything within about 5 km of the proposed ring road was had a higher prevalence for illegal drug operations. Kinda suprised how much illegal drug operations are happening in newly established communities (Copperfield, Saddleridge, etc.).

Reference to info: http://www.calgaryhealthregion.ca/pu...legal_drug.htm

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Anything within about 5 km of the proposed ring road was had a higher prevalence for illegal drug operations. Kinda suprised how much illegal drug operations are happening in newly established communities (Copperfield, Saddleridge, etc.).

I'm not that surprised. I think they like the attached garages. Was just talking to someone who moved out of Copperfield because of all the grow-ops. Him and his wife got pretty good at spotting them, but the cops like to wait until they're just about to harvest before they bust them. Which means, that they have about 3 months in which they can burn down the neighbourhood.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Not sure exactly where to put this info. I found some 2011 information from Alberta Health Services on health inspection orders issued to illegal drug operations. I put this in an online map here:

http://batchgeo.com/map/7db31f07a9a2...ed71a499b64be4

Anything within about 5 km of the proposed ring road was had a higher prevalence for illegal drug operations. Kinda suprised how much illegal drug operations are happening in newly established communities (Copperfield, Saddleridge, etc.).

Reference to info: http://www.calgaryhealthregion.ca/pu...legal_drug.htm

Wow NE!

I suppose it is tougher to map B. trafficking locations and C. user densities.

Regarding the 5km though, if you take +/- 5km from the ring road all the way around, that would be a majority of the city though.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by suburb

Wow NE!

I suppose it is tougher to map B. trafficking locations and C. user densities.

Regarding the 5km though, if you take +/- 5km from the ring road all the way around, that would be a majority of the city though.

I suppose if you mean north of the airport terminal or east of the airport terminal I'd agree with you. There is a fairly large swath in the northeast of established communities like Mayland Heights, Albert Park and Dover which don't seem to have the same prevalence of illegal drug operations. Using this rule would also capture pockets like Royal Oak, Panorama Hills, and Copperfield. I suppose these grow-ops also prefer communities where people are less likely to know their neighbours (community vintages less than 30 years). Seems after awhile each block develops there own 'block warden.' I'd also think that attached garages would really help for them to conceal illicit activity as well.

[Calgarian]

lol, that map shows one at city hall!

[Innersoul1]

We had a prenatal class in New Brighton on the weekend. Christ Alive is that far south. We went for lunch in that shopping area nearby. WOW, people complain about Westhills being a traffic nightmare. That place is just is disaster. it would pain me to live in any of those neighbouring areas and have to shop for groceries there.

[suburb]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

We had a prenatal class in New Brighton on the weekend. Christ Alive is that far south. We went for lunch in that shopping area nearby. WOW, people complain about Westhills being a traffic nightmare. That place is just is disaster. it would pain me to live in any of those neighbouring areas and have to shop for groceries there.

Hope labor doesn't start when you're down there. No hospital till the next county! (for the time being)

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Innersoul1

We had a prenatal class in New Brighton on the weekend. Christ Alive is that far south. We went for lunch in that shopping area nearby. WOW, people complain about Westhills being a traffic nightmare. That place is just is disaster. it would pain me to live in any of those neighbouring areas and have to shop for groceries there.

Yeah the power centre off 130th is the worst piece of traffic planning I have seen in this city, especially the 4-way stop by the Co-op gas station. Just brutal!

[Innersoul1]

Originally Posted by suburb

Hope labor doesn't start when you're down there. No hospital till the next county! (for the time being)

I sure hope labour doesn't go on while down there! But being in Aspen we are equidistant from Foothills and Rockyview. But we are shooting for a home birth!

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Yeah the power centre off 130th is the worst piece of traffic planning I have seen in this city, especially the 4-way stop by the Co-op gas station. Just brutal!

Amen brother!!! Took me 20 minutes to get through that stop sign!

[suburbia]

Thought this was an interesting article from T.O.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...investors.html

This month, the three-bedroom bungalow, circa the 1960s and without much updating, sold for $421,800 over the asking price, creating a buzz among agents and other buyers.

<>the bungalow at 300 Dudley Ave. was listed at $759,000.

The winning bid of $1,180,800 came from a university student ...

One of the photo captions in the article:

Brad Lamb says people who live in downtown Toronto will have to be rich or settle for condos. (Brad Lamb Real Estate)

[Policy Wonk]

I was in California when their real estate bubble reached its apsis of absurdity and by the looks of it Toronto and Vancouver are going to go even further down that rabbit hole.

[freeweed]

Yeah, Calgary's affordability just gets better and better each day compared to the other big 2. I wonder if the average wage in Toronto has gone up 40% this year?

[Wentworth]

Been a while since I've looked at the affordability graphs in this RBC report. Pretty crazy.

[DizzyEdge]

Well that pretty much confirms my random checking out on MLS that if I sold my small house in calgary I could afford a small condo in Vancouver.

[suburbia]

I was in downtown today walking around with my 2.5 yr old. A couple things I noticed that I have not thought of before:
1. There is a lot of danger in DT for a little kid from the surface LRT / LRT stations to all the volume of cars driving right to the edge of sidewalks (which run right to the edge of the road), etc.
2. There are sure a lot of smokers in DT particularly on the corners. Walking around there were several places where I was breathing in smoke, and it was probably an unfortunate first for my kid.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Wentworth

Been a while since I've looked at the affordability graphs in this RBC report. Pretty crazy.

The graph was really telling, and speaks oodles, particularly for Vancouver.

As an aside, I also of course noticed how condos are shown to cost way less of a household's income. I wanted to highlight that the report, which I just finished reading, did not account for the fact that on average a condo owning household makes less than the average detached house owning family. When normalizing for this, the difference between these two diminishes greatly. The other item that was not considered was condo fees. While some proportion of condo fees go towards utilities, another proportion goes towards common amenities, and certainly that portion, such as the need to heat hallways, service elevators, etc. needs to be considered when looking at proportion of costs required to live in such a dwelling.

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by suburbia

The graph was really telling, and speaks oodles, particularly for Vancouver.

As an aside, I also of course noticed how condos are shown to cost way less of a household's income. I wanted to highlight that the report, which I just finished reading, did not account for the fact that on average a condo owning household makes less than the average detached house owning family. When normalizing for this, the difference between these two diminishes greatly. The other item that was not considered was condo fees. While some proportion of condo fees go towards utilities, another proportion goes towards common amenities, and certainly that portion, such as the need to heat hallways, service elevators, etc. needs to be considered when looking at proportion of costs required to live in such a dwelling.

Making a broad statement such that condo dwellers make less money is quite unfounded in a large number metropolitan areas in north america, in fact I would posture that the opposite is true in the large majority of cases (see the drive till you qualify situation), I'd wager that the median income of the Beltline is significantly higher than that of a suburb such as Cranston or Harvest Hills. The report utilizes Median Pre-Tax Household Income due to the fact that statistically significant data is likely unavailable for income levels split by housing types, while not perfect the income measure is used across the board giving a reasonable comparison.

While the condo fees are not considered in the report it is a highly variable item that varies significantly and would be extremely hard to attach a median number too. I agree that it would likely change the graph in a certain manner, given that utilities are accounted for in all housing types (likely calculated based on square footage), not having the whole condo fee included is a moot point as maintenance costs and HOA fees are not included in the other types of housing, thus leaving the graph relatively correct, while a small error might be present this is to be expected in a purely statistical analysis

[Full Mountain]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I was in downtown today walking around with my 2.5 yr old. A couple things I noticed that I have not thought of before:
1. There is a lot of danger in DT for a little kid from the surface LRT / LRT stations to all the volume of cars driving right to the edge of sidewalks (which run right to the edge of the road), etc.
2. There are sure a lot of smokers in DT particularly on the corners. Walking around there were several places where I was breathing in smoke, and it was probably an unfortunate first for my kid.

1. There was a tragic incident with a young child and an LRT platform a year(?) ago, it's a dangerous situation for everyone, unfortunately we have become very used to the dangers posed by these threats and can become lackadaisical about them

2. Unfortunately this is more common that it should be, but has decreased in the last few years which is a good sign