What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    74
IMG_20250718_155505284_HDR.jpgIMG_20250718_155501925_HDR.jpgIMG_20250718_155458029_HDR.jpgIMG_20250718_155438769_HDR.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20250718_155458029_HDR.jpg
    IMG_20250718_155458029_HDR.jpg
    363.7 KB · Views: 282
David A said:
Yes and the nice thing about gentrification here is this land was undeveloped so nobody has been displaced by it
Click to expand...
Qualico's project is an example of responsible inner city development. Who knows what city council was thinking when it changed the zoning bylaws to allow higher density housing in established inner city communities. Higher density zoning increases property values making inner city housing less affordable - not more affordable. The end result of the higher density bylaws is that it forces anybody wanting an inner city single family dwelling to pay more, accept less, or accept the suburbs. And vice versa for anybody moving from the suburbs to an established inner city community. Qualico's project doesn't create the same issue because it's located in an area with a low land use value.
 
Out of Towner said:
Qualico's project is an example of responsible inner city development. Who knows what city council was thinking when it changed the zoning bylaws to allow higher density housing in established inner city communities. Higher density zoning increases property values making inner city housing less affordable - not more affordable. The end result of the higher density bylaws is that it forces anybody wanting an inner city single family dwelling to pay more, accept less, or accept the suburbs. And vice versa for anybody moving from the suburbs to an established inner city community. Qualico's project doesn't create the same issue because it's located in an area with a low land use value.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no thanks. Government regulations aren't the answer.
 
Out of Towner said:
Qualico's project is an example of responsible inner city development. Who knows what city council was thinking when it changed the zoning bylaws to allow higher density housing in established inner city communities. Higher density zoning increases property values making inner city housing less affordable - not more affordable. The end result of the higher density bylaws is that it forces anybody wanting an inner city single family dwelling to pay more, accept less, or accept the suburbs. And vice versa for anybody moving from the suburbs to an established inner city community. Qualico's project doesn't create the same issue because it's located in an area with a low land use value.
Click to expand...
Hot take: I don't think renters and condo/townhouse owners should be relegated to "low land use value" areas.
 
Out of Towner said:
Qualico's project is an example of responsible inner city development. Who knows what city council was thinking when it changed the zoning bylaws to allow higher density housing in established inner city communities. Higher density zoning increases property values making inner city housing less affordable - not more affordable. The end result of the higher density bylaws is that it forces anybody wanting an inner city single family dwelling to pay more, accept less, or accept the suburbs. And vice versa for anybody moving from the suburbs to an established inner city community. Qualico's project doesn't create the same issue because it's located in an area with a low land use value.
Click to expand...
Limiting housing supply through restrictive anti-density zoning in established neighborhoods doesn't increase property prices? Give me a break with these textbook NIMBY arguments, real estate is not exempt from basic supply-demand economics. I'm super pleased with Qualico's development so far, but the need for reasonable densification with infills is very much present.
 
Garceyues said:
Limiting housing supply through restrictive anti-density zoning in established neighborhoods doesn't increase property prices? Give me a break with these textbook NIMBY arguments, real estate is not exempt from basic supply-demand economics. I'm super pleased with Qualico's development so far, but the need for reasonable densification with infills is very much present.
Click to expand...
Land value is a function of zoning. That's not a NIMBY talking point as you allege. Go to any real estate web site and you will see that the cost of land on a square foot basis increases in concert with its permitted density. So by permitting 8 suite infills anywhere in established neighborhoods, the effect is that it makes single family housing more unaffordable.
 
Barnaby said:
Yeah, no thanks. Government regulations aren't the answer.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong but the City grants exclusives to builders on its land developments. I believe that mom and pop builders are restricted from building product in Blatchford for example. It's open shop for mom and pop builders in established neighborhoods but closed shop for them in large developments and sub-divisions. That's government regulation.
 
out of towner, your analysis is absolutely correct! But you dare critisize the current progressive group think. So, how dare you! ;)

The inner city is being bought up by developers with deep pockets and they will want to ensure a return in their investment. mom/ pop landlords are disappearing. no more breaks on rent, no more friendly relations with a good landlord. everything is a corporate transaction.

seriously, how does an eight unit 'luxury' apartment in the middle of a community, with no parking actually make it better? it doesn't. those rentals in crestwood, for example, will not be for the average family. the city should have focused density first in the dt and central edm, around certain lrt stations, etc.

why isn't dt seeing any 'infill'? part of the reason is the low hanging fruit council created by deleting zoning all together. why build dt, when you can buy a single family home and build a 'luxury' eight unit apt. i do expect down votes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top