[Moncton] Infinity | Harper & Main | 90m | 30 Storeys | Proposed

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

What type and where are you talking about? Would you mind explaining what this would be for?

Crazy people attending city council sessions.

[Nashe]

Originally Posted by ChampduLarge

On the 15 minute thing, it is a right wing corruption of an idea that cities should be trying to develop in such a way that people can obtain most of what they need within a 15 minute walking radius. It's a perfectly reasonable goal. Moncton is quite far from this.

I dunno. I'm pretty sure you could plop down at any random point in Moncton limits and have a poutine and a double-double in your hand in 15 minutes.

[jnaygull]

Originally Posted by Nashe

I dunno. I'm pretty sure you could plop down at any random point in Moncton limits and have a poutine and a double-double in your hand in 15 minutes.

With the amount of Dollarama's around, you can pretty much get whatever you need within 5 minutes.

[jonny golden]

I really hope that this building doesn't get downsized. It was very disappointing to see the Main & V.H. project go from 10, down to 6 floors. Especially given the prominent location. I'm still frustrated with the developer's decision on that one.

[lirette]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Crazy people attending city council sessions.

Yeah exactly that's what I meant. We've seen clips of this elsewhere for all kinds of issues. Social media algorithms are powerful and you never know what someone's mindset might be showing up to these council meetings. I don't think we've seen anything close to that level yet, just saying in our current environment it could trend that way. I

'm not sure what the answer is, but we need more of these developments approved along with the smaller infil ones if we are ever going to get caught up on housing supply, and that's what needs to be thoroughly explained to the public. If we spend years arguing about projects for 100 units here's, 100 units there we will never get anywhere. This one should set some precedent for others. So far I'm encouraged by what the city has been doing.

[MonctonianSentinel01]

Originally Posted by lirette

Yeah exactly that's what I meant. We've seen clips of this elsewhere for all kinds of issues. Social media algorithms are powerful and you never know what someone's mindset might be showing up to these council meetings. I don't think we've seen anything close to that level yet, just saying in our current environment it could trend that way. I

'm not sure what the answer is, but we need more of these developments approved along with the smaller infil ones if we are ever going to get caught up on housing supply, and that's what needs to be thoroughly explained to the public. If we spend years arguing about projects for 100 units here's, 100 units there we will never get anywhere. This one should set some precedent for others. So far I'm encouraged by what the city has been doing.

Yeah and if you flood the market it will bring down the prices as well because there will be so much surplus. I don't think that infinity will accomplish that on it's own, not even close but these types of developments are great. Some people will be inconvenienced by shadows and less privacy and those are legit in some way or another, but people paying huge prices for housing is even worse.

I seen a posting on here (I think it was this thread) about micro apartments and they were going for almost $1000/month. IMO that's terrible, you should be able to get a house for that price. I am truly saddened by the housing crisis that this country is in right now. How are young people supposed to get a home? Stay with their parents and save up until they're 30 years old? Most of these new high rises are probably not kid or family friendly? It's not an ideal place to raise a family anyway (IMO).

Even though I would love to see downtown Moncton to be a lil Toronto I would still like to see plenty of houses still going up for young families and at a reasonable cost and I'm sure that this will help with that, at least I would like to believe! I would love to see taller stacks downtown but I'm not against the suburban areas as well though, especially if this 15 minute city ideal can be done in suburbia so that those people don't all have to go to the core for most things causing traffic and congestion.

Thankfully I believe that Moncton is about to continue on it's growth spurt for quite some time and that this design of an ideal city has come about at the perfect time so that Moncton can be modeled into this urban vision. I think that downtown, Mountain road, Trinity/Mapleton roads and Elmwood drive areas can be looked at as small village centers in the middle of a larger city and can be modeled around this ideal. I think we definitely need more at the far end of North West Moncton but I'm sure we'll get there. Thankfully again, Moncton has been on this road for a while now so I'm sure that as we develop we will do it in a way that we can access most amenities close by.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

I seen a posting on here (I think it was this thread) about micro apartments and they were going for almost $1000/month. IMO that's terrible, you should be able to get a house for that price. I am truly saddened by the housing crisis that this country is in right now. How are young people supposed to get a home? Stay with their parents and save up until they're 30 years old? Most of these new high rises are probably not kid or family friendly? It's not an ideal place to raise a family anyway (IMO).

To be fair those units are furnished in a brand new building. I don't think we can realistically expect rents in new buildings to be much lower than that. $1000/month for a house translates to a purchase price of about $180,000 with 5% down. Without property tax, without house insurance, without a water bill – all of which are built into the price of a rental unit (you do need tenant insurance but it it a lot less than home insurance). Not to mention maintenance costs.

Housing costs can only be realistically suppressed so much, and you're absolutely right that we need to flood the market with new units. I just don't see how a $1000/month payment is realistic for most people's situations.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by lirette

Yeah exactly that's what I meant. We've seen clips of this elsewhere for all kinds of issues. Social media algorithms are powerful and you never know what someone's mindset might be showing up to these council meetings. I don't think we've seen anything close to that level yet, just saying in our current environment it could trend that way. I

'm not sure what the answer is, but we need more of these developments approved along with the smaller infil ones if we are ever going to get caught up on housing supply, and that's what needs to be thoroughly explained to the public. If we spend years arguing about projects for 100 units here's, 100 units there we will never get anywhere. This one should set some precedent for others. So far I'm encouraged by what the city has been doing.

100 units here or there isn't something to brush aside. It should be given serious consideration either as a planning initiative or community input. Even the most extreme NIMBY often provides insight on how to improve a development. Expecting new housing supply to address affordability is not going to happen as the cost to construct are at record highs. A project simply won't be built if the market is below the threshold. This being a skyscraper forum, we are generally very pro development particularly when it comes to tall buildings. We don't allow ourselves an honest thorough critique of a development either. The discussion over Infinity is mainly centred on its place in the skyline, will bring more people to an area, better than what currently stands, etc. over the actual qualities of the proposal that we know so far. It's the same with the housing crisis. We tend to only consider options for more housing as its suits our hobby. More housing solutions are mostly bandaid as the costs to build is already above what most can afford and increased construction will only serve to inflate those costs even more. The better solutions to this problem are those that address the causes for the insatiable demand for housing above what we can produce affordably.

[MonctonianSentinel01]

Originally Posted by OliverD

To be fair those units are furnished in a brand new building. I don't think we can realistically expect rents in new buildings to be much lower than that. $1000/month for a house translates to a purchase price of about $180,000 with 5% down. Without property tax, without house insurance, without a water bill – all of which are built into the price of a rental unit (you do need tenant insurance but it it a lot less than home insurance). Not to mention maintenance costs.

Housing costs can only be realistically suppressed so much, and you're absolutely right that we need to flood the market with new units. I just don't see how a $1000/month payment is realistic for most people's situations.

Brand new building or not that is a lot of money for a single bedroom micro apartment. Furnished or not it is a cubby hole. $1150/month for 314sq ft.? Plus heating and power. Plus renters insurance. I mean even if housing insurance is a little more you can get a $200,000 mortgage for $1314/month and that's at a high 6.3%. Property tax will make it more expensive and there will be a little maintenance but the point is that you can at least quadruple your square footage and build some equity plus have a nest for a future family. Just doesn't make much sense. This is probably what you would find in a crowed Asian city or something. Doesn't make sense for wide open Canada. You would think that they are paying 25 million dollars just for the lot to build on. These would be ok maybe for a student who didn't want to stay in a dorm or something, but even then could a student afford this unless they were working as well?

Prices need to come down including the construction materials. Prices are way too high.

I'm not trying to attack the project or our great capital city. Just want things more affordable for everyone. Sorry I don't have a solution to bring to the table but something needs to be done. Not sure if there is bad policy making in the government or not. I know that with all of the immigration that is happening (not necessarily against immigration) that there is massive need to put all of these people. However the feds don't want to do anything about regulating prices (or perhaps some other method that would be less invasive), when it comes to prices or construction materials. We have the most resources of all of the G7 nations and the most space but the highest housing prices for material cost and land. Definitely something seriously wrong here folks.

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

Brand new building or not that is a lot of money for a single bedroom micro apartment. Furnished or not it is a cubby hole. $1150/month for 314sq ft.? Plus heating and power. Plus renters insurance. I mean even if housing insurance is a little more you can get a $200,000 mortgage for $1314/month and that's at a high 6.3%. Property tax will make it more expensive and there will be a little maintenance but the point is that you can at least quadruple your square footage and build some equity plus have a nest for a future family. Just doesn't make much sense. This is probably what you would find in a crowed Asian city or something. Doesn't make sense for wide open Canada. You would think that they are paying 25 million dollars just for the lot to build on. These would be ok maybe for a student who didn't want to stay in a dorm or something, but even then could a student afford this unless they were working as well?

Prices need to come down including the construction materials. Prices are way too high.

I'm not trying to attack the project or our great capital city. Just want things more affordable for everyone. Sorry I don't have a solution to bring to the table but something needs to be done. Not sure if there is bad policy making in the government or not. I know that with all of the immigration that is happening (not necessarily against immigration) that there is massive need to put all of these people. However the feds don't want to do anything about regulating prices (or perhaps some other method that would be less invasive), when it comes to prices or construction materials. We have the most resources of all of the G7 nations and the most space but the highest housing prices for material cost and land. Definitely something seriously wrong here folks.

I share your concern for the cost of housing but a lot of what you're talking about is not new. Inflation has obviously exacerbated some of these issues though. But consider the following:

- New construction has always been expensive relative to existing housing. Today's luxury housing is tomorrow's affordable housing. What has perhaps happened is that the delta between the two has grown closer because in more recent times we have not been able to keep up with the demand for housing (for various reasons). That's a problem we need to solve.
- You're comparing a mortgage to a rental, but again, that difference has always been there. A $1314 mortgage is realistically more like $1900 with property taxes, utilities, and insurance. That $1150 rent becomes something like $1300 with electricity and insurance, so the monthly costs is still nearly 50% more before we consider the time and money spent on maintaining your own property. There are advantages to both types of housing and some people will want one and not the other.
- "Wide open Canada" doesn't make much difference in terms of the costs to service infrastructure, and in order to make our cities sustainable we need to be more compact and dense. These micro units are simply one more option that is on the market and again, they work for some people. On the flip side of the coin are the plethora of newer units on the market that are oversized for what they offer, because the developers are bumping up against the current density limits and can justify two bedroom apartments that are close to or even larger than 1500 sq ft. Part of the answer is that we need more diversity in housing options and that's what micro units provide.

[BlackYear]

Place Horizon had 1 bed 1 bath 730sqft at $950ish when they first opened.
Promenade 9 had 1 bed 1 bath 950sqft (city side view) at around $1100 if I remember correctly.
Three Sisters are currently advertising 686sqft at $1285 right now.

Infinity, will most likely have one, hopefully two, 1 bed 1 bath on each floor, but how much for their approximate 650-900sqft will be is a who knows.

[MonctonianSentinel01]

Originally Posted by OliverD

I share your concern for the cost of housing but a lot of what you're talking about is not new. Inflation has obviously exacerbated some of these issues though. But consider the following:

- New construction has always been expensive relative to existing housing. Today's luxury housing is tomorrow's affordable housing. What has perhaps happened is that the delta between the two has grown closer because in more recent times we have not been able to keep up with the demand for housing (for various reasons). That's a problem we need to solve.
- You're comparing a mortgage to a rental, but again, that difference has always been there. A $1314 mortgage is realistically more like $1900 with property taxes, utilities, and insurance. That $1150 rent becomes something like $1300 with electricity and insurance, so the monthly costs is still nearly 50% more before we consider the time and money spent on maintaining your own property. There are advantages to both types of housing and some people will want one and not the other.
- "Wide open Canada" doesn't make much difference in terms of the costs to service infrastructure, and in order to make our cities sustainable we need to be more compact and dense. These micro units are simply one more option that is on the market and again, they work for some people. On the flip side of the coin are the plethora of newer units on the market that are oversized for what they offer, because the developers are bumping up against the current density limits and can justify two bedroom apartments that are close to or even larger than 1500 sq ft. Part of the answer is that we need more diversity in housing options and that's what micro units provide.

I agree on your first point. Also it could also be that people want the most expensive floors, trims and finishes on the interior and the exterior which puts up the price considerably, some of it is people trying to live out of their means.

Point taken on the 2nd.

On the 3rd point though I agree with the infrastructure comment. Also more density in the core areas, yes I understand with no quarrels.

Question though on what the larger scope of more dense and compact cities is, so that it is more affordable? In terms of repaving roads, redoing sewer lines, water lines etc.? So the more people living in a smaller area can make the city more affordable to keep down property taxes and such? Another words is it financial or environmental?

[adamuptownsj]

An undiscussed housing stock issue is the decrease in housing durability starting in the 60s/70s, combined with fifty years of low population growth and a tepid economy, have left a gap where not many homes are 'aging into affordability'.

Plus, increasing your population at the same growth rate as Gambia in an extremely expensive and highly regulated construction market, albeit unlike Gambia with a sub-replacement fertility rate, growing almost entirely through adult immigration, has drastic and immediate consequences. It's worse than it looks because immigration is highly concentrated and vacant housing is often far from where people move to en masse.

The constantly-refreshing National Building Codes and their constantly 'improving' standards for everything from shower pressure to insulation are a big burden too.

Lots of factors and immigration is a massive one. It's not impacting supply- that cake is baked- but it's responsible for almost all the surging demand. 2010-level immigration and this becomes less of an issue immediately. A Newfoundland a year of new people, mainly into 3-4 metropolitan areas, is clearly too much for Canada to digest.

[MonctonRad]

Last year, it was two Newfoundlands per year, and, so far, the growth rate is similar this year...............

[adamuptownsj]

Yeah this is absolutely not sustainable. It's crazy for anyone to pretend gigantic unprecedented demand has no impact on supply. Canada wasn't exactly a closed country with cheap housing when we imported a Metro Moncton of immigrants every year. Housing costs will continue to grow- and that's not even getting into interest rates, 'green buildings' being required for CMHC assistance, etc. Hell, even things like requiring two sets of stairs in all buildings over 2 storeys is unheard of in places like Austria, South Korea, etc. Not exactly unregulated dangerous hellscape countries. This stuff adds up fast. Sprinklers too!

https://slate.com/business/2021/12/s...partments.html

https://www.treehugger.com/single-st...states-5197036

[OliverD]

Originally Posted by MonctonianSentinel01

I agree on your first point. Also it could also be that people want the most expensive floors, trims and finishes on the interior and the exterior which puts up the price considerably, some of it is people trying to live out of their means.

Point taken on the 2nd.

On the 3rd point though I agree with the infrastructure comment. Also more density in the core areas, yes I understand with no quarrels.

Question though on what the larger scope of more dense and compact cities is, so that it is more affordable? In terms of repaving roads, redoing sewer lines, water lines etc.? So the more people living in a smaller area can make the city more affordable to keep down property taxes and such? Another words is it financial or environmental?

I don't think the typical level of interior finishings moves the needle much in terms of affordability. Nicer floors and fixtures and counters is single digit percentage stuff. Developers use those finishings because they're the new standard.

In terms of sustainability, it's both fiscal and environmental. Fiscal because higher density means you don't need as much costly infrastructure. The reality is that most Canadian cities have a ton of sprawl that is subsidized by downtowns and other higher density nodes, and strengthening those nodes only improves the fiscal situations of those cities.

In terms of the environment it results in less car dependency, less green space being taken away, etc.

Obviously not everyone wants to live in an apartment building but single family homes can coexist with gentle density as well.

[MonctonRad]

The big ICON sign has been remounted on the Infinity lot. I guess that's something..........

I presume Sandpiper Lady will be along in short order to spray paint some epithets on it.

[Monctoncore]

Originally Posted by monctonrad

the big icon sign has been remounted on the infinity lot. I guess that's something..........

i presume sandpiper lady will be along in short order to spray paint some epithets on it.

toronto east!!

[DyAm00394]

Someone over on Retail Talk and Share NB commented saying from what they are hearing from their sources, this project is going to be scaled back significantly. Also they said they've heard Dieppe is protesting the location, saying they want this in their town.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by DyAm00394

Someone over on Retail Talk and Share NB commented saying from what they are hearing from their sources, this project is going to be scaled back significantly. Also they said they've heard Dieppe is protesting the location, saying they want this in their town.

This guy is speaking out of his ass. He also made a post saying the Three Sisters was originally going to be 25 storeys, and was cut back to 15. This is patently false. The Three Sisters was ALWAYS going to be 15 storeys.

As for Dieppe saying "it wants the project" - they have no say in this matter. Also, I clearly remember when the downtown Dieppe visioning was done several years ago, they clearly indicated they were interested in buildings in the 5-6 storey range, in order to preserve the character of the downtown part of the city. Unless city council over there has recently suffered a stroke, they would have no interest in a 30 storey tower.

I could certainly see Infinity being scaled back due to economic circumstances, but probably to the 20-25 storey range. I remain hopeful however that the project will remain on track for 30 storeys. Construction won't occur until late 2024 or 2025.