Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[fusili]

You are preaching to the converted man. I think that is exactly the type of development that could fill in a lot of the collectors (Northmount, 19th, Briseboise) in those areas. Small scale infill, but larger than a semi-detached. Brilliant.

[MasterG]

One interesting aspect to come out of this redevelopment will be differentiation between neighbourhoods, which Calgary currently doesn't have in great amounts on account of the built form being largely all from the same eras.

Some neighbourhoods will face redevelopment pressures, some will resist more than others and some will escape unnoticed for another few decades and remain unchanged.

You can see this from our first generation of neighbourhoods that have gone through the replacement cycle. Most notably in recent years is Marda Loop, which has completely transformed and is now even getting weirder more interesting stuff, from mid-rises, to small offices, to patios and board game cafes. Meanwhile Mount Royal and Elbow Park managed to insult themselves completely from much change. I expect this pattern to continue with some neighbourhoods stagnate or protected while others morph into something completely different than the current environment.

The neighbourhood/area that I think will see the biggest changes in the next 20 years is Banff Trail / Charleswood and the U of C periphery. These places are too close to University and inner city development pressures on all sides to remain the same for much longer. It is no surprise that Calgary's first redevelopment of strip malls and TOD sites are focused here (Stadium, Brentwood, Northland Drive etc.). Expect a weird mix of gentrifying inner city spillover, student housing and rentals in an increasingly heterogeneous part of town.

[Cowtown_Tim]

Originally Posted by fusili

You are preaching to the converted man. I think that is exactly the type of development that could fill in a lot of the collectors (Northmount, 19th, Briseboise) in those areas. Small scale infill, but larger than a semi-detached. Brilliant.

Completely agree. I suspect there are a number of nimbys that would fight it, but the city needs to make it happen.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by fusili

Let's actually discuss this. I think it raises some good points.

Many middle-ring suburbs are facing decline due to where they are in the growth curve. Because they were built almost entirely with single-family homes, they tend to exacerbate the growth cycle. Problem is, how do we mitigate this and foster regrowth? Thoughts?

Equating empty nest households with a neighbourhood in decline or stagnation is a slightly ridiculous overreach. These neighbourhoods are not left to their own devices going to look something like Detroit's Westwood Park. They're going to look like neighbourhoods in Toronto and Vancouver where new stucco monstrosities and architecturally bizarre split-levels gradually replace the original housing stock.

Now there is a socialist argument to be made about the empty-nesters retaining their giant family homes (Over-60 bedroom blockers 'should be taxed out of their homes' to encourage them to leave 'too large' family houses ) but anecdotally, knowing a good number of these couples both in Calgary and elsewhere their reasoning for staying in the family home is varied but significantly economic and lifestyle driven.

The exercise begins with contemplating a windfall from the sale of their family home and ends with the realization that the condo that will leave them with that windfall isn't somewhere they actually want to live either location, unit size or amenity wise.

[dazzlingdave88]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Equating empty nest households with a neighbourhood in decline or stagnation is a slightly ridiculous overreach. These neighbourhoods are not left to their own devices going to look something like Detroit's Westwood Park. They're going to look like neighbourhoods in Toronto and Vancouver where new stucco monstrosities and architecturally bizarre split-levels gradually replace the original housing stock.

Now there is a socialist argument to be made about the empty-nesters retaining their giant family homes (Over-60 bedroom blockers 'should be taxed out of their homes' to encourage them to leave 'too large' family houses ) but anecdotally, knowing a good number of these couples both in Calgary and elsewhere their reasoning for staying in the family home is varied but significantly economic and lifestyle driven.


The exercise begins with contemplating a windfall from the sale of their family home and ends with the realization that the condo that will leave them with that windfall isn't somewhere they actually want to live either location, unit size or amenity wise.

I don't think it's a ridiculous statement at all. This is exactly what the article was pointing out.

Also, anecdotes are not a good way to judge trends. Studies and statistics are.

I think what we are going to see in the upcoming decade with the massive baby boomer demographic reaching their senior years is an increase in demand for walkable/transit friendly neghbourhoods because of old age taking it's toll on seniors independence. I know the self-driving car makers are explicitly expressing interest in this market.

Unfortunately many of these neighbourhoods, are not dense enough to have good transit access or to warrant improvements to walkability. Having their children leave home reduces the need for transit in their neighbourhood. Hence the need for a makeover.

[Surrealplaces]

Originally Posted by fusili

You are preaching to the converted man. I think that is exactly the type of development that could fill in a lot of the collectors (Northmount, 19th, Briseboise) in those areas. Small scale infill, but larger than a semi-detached. Brilliant.

[MichaelS]

Why not blanket re-zone some of the communities to R-C2, as opposed to the current R-C1? I also agree though that we can go denser along the arterials, like SurrealPlaces was suggesting.

But take a community like Silver Springs. Full of 50 foot lots, so easily able to split into 2 homes. It would take time, but eventually you have the neighbourhood redone, still with single family homes. Not dissimilar to somewhere like Killarny. And while the community isn't a "grid" network, I doubt doubling the housing stock would overwhelm the roads. As was pointed out earlier, housholds are holding fewer people, so it will not be a doubling of peak population. Plus, if the self driving car becomes a real thing (which I think it will), the mobility challenges these types of communities present will be greatly diminished.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by dazzlingdave88

I don't think it's a ridiculous statement at all. This is exactly what the article was pointing out.

Also, anecdotes are not a good way to judge trends. Studies and statistics are.

Anecdotes are a look into the decision making of individuals. Why did these couples with giant empty houses in Edgemont, Country Hills and Santana decide the stay there? Well you can ask them that question.

I think what we are going to see in the upcoming decade with the massive baby boomer demographic reaching their senior years is an increase in demand for walkable/transit friendly neghbourhoods because of old age taking it's toll on seniors independence. I know the self-driving car makers are explicitly expressing interest in this market.

The demand, conceptually is probably already there. The issue is that for many of these couples appears to be that the move doesn't make sense financially. If you're healthy the age at which your independence will be significantly diminished is later and later.

I am pessimistic about Calgary's future because I don't perceive much of a future for Alberta as an oil producer. But we having to be facing a whole other magnitude of decline for there to be nobody who wants to either live in these houses or build a new stucco McMansion in their place.

[dazzlingdave88]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Anecdotes are a look into the decision making of individuals. Why did these couples with giant empty houses in Edgemont, Country Hills and Santana decide the stay there? Well you can ask them that question.



The demand, conceptually is probably already there. The issue is that for many of these couples appears to be that the move doesn't make sense financially. If you're healthy the age at which your independence will be significantly diminished is later and later.

I am pessimistic about Calgary's future because I don't perceive much of a future for Alberta as an oil producer. But we having to be facing a whole other magnitude of decline for there to be nobody who wants to either live in these houses or build a new stucco McMansion in their place.

I agree that anecdotes can be useful. I'm just saying decisions/policies shouldn't be made on them.

The healthy statement is something I also very much agree with. Unfortunately the older this demographic gets, the less that applies.

Something we will also need to consider in the future is the case when population growth in Canada can't even be sustained with immigration. Housing prices are going to collapse in this future. I wonder where people will stop buying houses first? Close to many amenities downtown or in the far flung communities that require more time spent in getting from place to place?

[CalgaryAlex]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Anecdotes are a look into the decision making of individuals. Why did these couples with giant empty houses in Edgemont, Country Hills and Santana decide the stay there? Well you can ask them that question.



The demand, conceptually is probably already there. The issue is that for many of these couples appears to be that the move doesn't make sense financially. If you're healthy the age at which your independence will be significantly diminished is later and later.

I am pessimistic about Calgary's future because I don't perceive much of a future for Alberta as an oil producer. But we having to be facing a whole other magnitude of decline for there to be nobody who wants to either live in these houses or build a new stucco McMansion in their place.

I know a number of individuals and couples of the boomer generation who want to downsize, have less space to clean/repair, and avoid shoveling their driveways and mowing the lawn. Particularly if they have an appetite for travel and are away from the house for possibly months at a time.

Ideally, many would be moving to a condo. However, when you compare monthly expenses after adding often substantial condo fees and special assessments, it doesn't necessarily work for them upon first glance. Personally, I think by selling a $500,000 house and moving into a $300,000 condo, the excess equity retained from the sale of the house would cover any additional monthly costs in conjunction with some simple investments. But for many, it's difficult to take that leap when they are currently only paying property taxes, with mortgage completely paid off.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by CalgaryAlex

Personally, I think by selling a $500,000 house and moving into a $300,000 condo, the excess equity retained from the sale of the house would cover any additional monthly costs in conjunction with some simple investments.

Yeah, but condo fees are an open ended liability that never goes away, and as land values increase with growing cities, you also end up losing out on that relative wealth appreciation. It is a good move if you don't care about how your kids will be doing when you're gone - so if you are selfish like that, condos are a great option!

[Policy Wonk]

All these couples basically said the exact same thing nearly verbatim.

They want to downsize their number of bedrooms, they don't want to downsize their kitchen, their living areas, their home office or forego storage. They want underground parking for two vehicles, they want fitness facilities and a pool. They want to stay in the Northwest or Southwest or centrally. And oh yeah, they want to walk away from the sale of their house with "money to help the kids."

You do the math. They want a million dollar condo for $250,000 to $300,000. When they can't get that they just stay put.

[fusili]

Let's have a ridiculous debate on suburbs vs inner city again!!!

Break and Enters in YYC: total per community and per capita.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...hood-1.3494518

Interesting how Beltline is one of the lowest B&E rates. Likely because condos are harder to break into and there more likely to be neighbours around. But once outside the Beltline, the inner city does experience more B&Es than farther out suburbs.

[Suburgatory]

There was another article with a good list by neighbourhood someone posted on Calgarypuck on Tuesday.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...urge-1.3492739

Of the inner city neighbourhoods that are high on the list, they're the "richest". Downtown West End for the win.

[fusili]

The data should have been averaged over a longer period of time. A single year of data will still have a lot of randomness to it, and not reflect true experience. Also, the law of small numbers plays into this a lot. Roxboro has a very, very small population, 402, but with 9 break-ins, they had the highest rate per capita in the city.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

Interesting how Beltline is one of the lowest B&E rates. Likely because condos are harder to break into and there more likely to be neighbours around. But once outside the Beltline, the inner city does experience more B&Es than farther out suburbs.

You're probably right. Once people do get in, however, sometimes it becomes a multiple crime scenario. I've heard and known about this most certainly when it comes to underground garages. If someone gets in (and they can quite easily if they want) there is a good chance multiple cars will be broken into in one shot.

Again, outside the scenario I described above, no doubt break and enters are philosophically more difficult in a secured complex of units, as opposed to a single unit on its own.

[jawagord]

Suburbs win again. No surprise here, you can't build new accomodations on urban land that has already has been built on without first tearing down what is there.

Despite efforts to curtail suburban residential growth in favour of long-established Calgary communities, a city draft report released this month forecasts an overwhelming concentration of Calgary’s population growth over the next five years will flock to the city’s fringes.

The draft report, titled Suburban Residential Growth 2018-2022 and authored by its planning, development and assessment department, predicts that 89 per cent of Calgary’s population growth during that period will be in the suburbs, compared with just 11 per cent in developed communities closer to the city centre.

The city expects to gain 76,700 new residents by 2022, with three sectors — the southeast (18,480 added residents), north (17,510) and northeast (15,750) — experiencing the most population growth.

These forecasts, if proven accurate, would continue a trend over the past five years. From 2013-17, 84 per cent Calgary’s population gain went to new suburban communities, according to the report. Last year, the city grew by more than 11,000 people, with new suburbs gaining about 16,000 residents and the remainder of the city losing 5,000.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ext-five-years

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by jawagord

Suburbs win again. No surprise here, you can't build new accomodations on urban land that has already has been built on without first tearing down what is there.

Despite efforts to curtail suburban residential growth in favour of long-established Calgary communities, a city draft report released this month forecasts an overwhelming concentration of Calgary’s population growth over the next five years will flock to the city’s fringes.

The draft report, titled Suburban Residential Growth 2018-2022 and authored by its planning, development and assessment department, predicts that 89 per cent of Calgary’s population growth during that period will be in the suburbs, compared with just 11 per cent in developed communities closer to the city centre.

The city expects to gain 76,700 new residents by 2022, with three sectors — the southeast (18,480 added residents), north (17,510) and northeast (15,750) — experiencing the most population growth.

These forecasts, if proven accurate, would continue a trend over the past five years. From 2013-17, 84 per cent Calgary’s population gain went to new suburban communities, according to the report. Last year, the city grew by more than 11,000 people, with new suburbs gaining about 16,000 residents and the remainder of the city losing 5,000.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-...ext-five-years

I don't think making these debates a win-lose scenario makes sense, and I think Josh White's recent interview may actually help you in understanding that. My recollection of his sentiments is that the densification in the core simply cannot meet the demand, and if you block accepting people to Calgary, the situation becomes actually worse in a sense because they end up moving to Airdrie or what have you.

Here it is, in case you missed it:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...gary-1.4554372

[DizzyEdge]

Yeah I kind of feel like the 'debate' is out of date. The key is to have well thought out design guidelines for both inner-city redevelopment and new suburbs. For suburbs, a reasonable density with as many inner-city perks/advantages as are reasonable for a new area, plus a design which will facilitate gradual conversion to 'inner city' over a century with the least amount of disruption and community re-design as is possible.

I'm not sure exactly of the solution, but I'd like to see design and/or policies to reduce the time and amount of 'dead zone' between being a lower density community and a higher density inner-city one.

By dead zone I mean a transition time when an entire or significant amount of a community is blanket upzoned, leading to perhaps decades of slow replacement of low density housing with highrises or non-residential uses, which seems to lead to owners selling the sfh to landlords who may not keep up the properties, or to investors who may demolish the buildings leaving them dirt pads for years.

Eg, the area around downtown Red Deer, Victoria Park, etc.

I'd be curious of staged upzoning, perhaps 10% of the community at a time might reduce the amount of time that the entire community is being degraded on its way to eventually be a new type of community.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Yeah I kind of feel like the 'debate' is out of date. The key is to have well thought out design guidelines for both inner-city redevelopment and new suburbs. For suburbs, a reasonable density with as many inner-city perks/advantages as are reasonable for a new area, plus a design which will facilitate gradual conversion to 'inner city' over a century with the least amount of disruption and community re-design as is possible.

I'm not sure exactly of the solution, but I'd like to see design and/or policies to reduce the time and amount of 'dead zone' between being a lower density community and a higher density inner-city one.

By dead zone I mean a transition time when an entire or significant amount of a community is blanket upzoned, leading to perhaps decades of slow replacement of low density housing with highrises or non-residential uses, which seems to lead to owners selling the sfh to landlords who may not keep up the properties, or to investors who may demolish the buildings leaving them dirt pads for years.

Eg, the area around downtown Red Deer, Victoria Park, etc.

I'd be curious of staged upzoning, perhaps 10% of the community at a time might reduce the amount of time that the entire community is being degraded on its way to eventually be a new type of community.

It would be ideal if they could figure out a way to keep communities vibrant all of the time. Maybe they need to have much more flexible zoning. What I'm getting at is new communities from the start would be designed to allow for various types of housing and businesses from Day 1 to prevent people from complaining about changes to the neighborhood. For example, SFH and 20+ story condo towers could be allowed to coexist if that's the way the market moved. If someone didn't like that they could move to an existing community that had more strict zoning laws. I don't think this would result in planning "disasters." Market forces and demographics would likely result in orderly transitions within neighborhoods.