[kcantor]

Opening up more land (supply) will weaken prices vs constraining land makes it more valuable for higher densities. One of the reasons we see less brownfield midrises is because we allow so many greenfield ones. Adding even more infill areas certainly won’t help.

I think you have that backwards...

Opening up more land (supply" will weaken land prices which in turn will make the project on it more profitable. Constraining land may make it more expensive but that makes it less valuable, not more, from a development perspective.

I think you may be mistaking a lack of finished product (which does make development more viable as it will increase selling prices) with a lack of an input component which will make the development less viable as it shrinks margins.

 

[thommyjo]

I think you have that backwards...

Opening up more land (supply" will weaken land prices which in turn will make the project on it more profitable. Constraining land may make it more expensive but that makes it less valuable, not more, from a development perspective.

I think you may be mistaking a lack of finished product (which does make development more viable as it will increase selling prices) with a lack of an input component which will make the development less viable as it shrinks margins.

if theres less land for developers to build midrises on, it’ll increase competition, prices, and pace of development, no? Vs ample supply of cheap land in suburbs and all the older areas having cheap tear downs too. Which spreads out our apartments all over the city instead on concentrating on the core, main streets, and near transit.

 

[kcantor]

if theres less land for developers to build midrises on, it’ll increase competition, prices, and pace of development, no? Vs ample supply of cheap land in suburbs and all the older areas having cheap tear downs too. Which spreads out our apartments all over the city instead on concentrating on the core, main streets, and near transit.

There will only be competition to purchase land - or any other supply component - when sales prices are high enough to generate an acceptable margin after all components have been paid for. Land could be free and if there’s no margin to be made there will be no competition for it.

 

[thommyjo]

There will only be competition to purchase land - or any other supply component - when sales prices are high enough to generate an acceptable margin after all components have been paid for. Land could be free and if there’s no margin to be made there will be no competition for it.

We currently have dozens of midrises being built outside of the henday in car dependent areas with little transit, retail, or nearby jobs.

If we concentrate the areas where midrises can be built, instead of allowing them in 3x more areas, it’ll increase the speed in which those lots (most ideal for density) are filled in. Vs a random spattering of midrises here and there.

It’s the same argument made about our downtown. Too big, too many empty lots, overly up-zoned and stalled.

If we limit how many places can have midrises until we fill in existing areas, then I think it creates more vibrancy and burns less trust with residents.

 

[kcantor]

^
You’re making the assumption that people who are buying or renting outside the Henday will opt to buy or rent in the Quarters et al where there may be transit but where there is still no retail or jobs and safety and security are bigger concerns than outside the Henday. When those neighborhoods you want midrises to succeed in are attractive for people to live in, those midrises will get built and no one will be happier than me. I have been an inner city resident and supporter and developer for a very long time and what I see breaks my heart.

 

[thommyjo]

^
You’re making the assumption that people who are buying or renting outside the Henday will opt to buy or rent in the Quarters et al where there may be transit but where there is still no retail or jobs and safety and security are bigger concerns than outside the Henday. When those neighborhoods you want midrises to succeed in are attractive for people to live in, those midrises will get built and no one will be happier than me. I have been an inner city resident and supporter and developer for a very long time and what I see breaks my heart.

I mean, bit of a logical fallacy being thrown out here.

The quarters…

How about century park, MWTC, Bonnie doon, mckernan, Whikwentowin, grovenor, west jasper place, Lynwood, strathearn, blatchford.

Lots of places that are more suburban and safe besides the quarters.

And we already have dozens of apartment buildings outside of the henday. No one is suggested we demolish those. We just shouldn’t keep building new ones when land 200m from LRT stations is vacant.

And why plop a midrises in mid block Crestwood when you have 142st looking for development on all corners. Start there. Do the 100-400m before worrying about 800m. We aren’t short on TOD land.

 

[David A]

I mean, bit of a logical fallacy being thrown out here.

The quarters…

How about century park, MWTC, Bonnie doon, mckernan, Whikwentowin, grovenor, west jasper place, Lynwood, strathearn, blatchford.

Lots of places that are more suburban and safe besides the quarters.

And we already have dozens of apartment buildings outside of the henday. No one is suggested we demolish those. We just shouldn’t keep building new ones when land 200m from LRT stations is vacant.

And why plop a midrises in mid block Crestwood when you have 142st looking for development on all corners. Start there. Do the 100-400m before worrying about 800m. We aren’t short on TOD land.

An interesting point - why are we having so much mid block development in residential areas now that is obviously disrupting and upsetting people who live there a lot, instead of focusing on TOD and developments on more major streets?

This is through out the city, for instance, the lot on 109 Street and 83 Ave has been vacant for many years, yet houses are now being torn down a block or half a block away to build new multi residential buildings.

One of the first orders of business for our new council is surely to do some clean up on our current wild west zoning situation.

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

.And why plop a midrises in mid block Crestwood when you have 142st looking for development on all corners. Start there. Do the 100-400m before worrying about 800m. We aren’t short on TOD land.

Because that's were people want to live.

Many people want/can only afford high density who want neighbourhoods for things other than transit.

I love my condo, except for the fact I am next to the train and a major roadway. It's loud, stinks, and the racers/straight pipes ruin my kid's sleep at night. If I could buy the same condo mid block in a nice neighbourhood I would be in heaven and would happily pay twice the price. I don't want a house, I like condo living but the unappealing location of most central condos will drive us to a house when our kid is a few years older and needs some freedom. We moved here in part to be close to transit, but that has ended up meaning nothing to us as we don't travel downtown much and it's usually cheaper to drive anyway. Most stuff we want isn't along the train line.

This focus on only allowing high density along major routes and near transit really reinforces the idea that SFH are the preferred housing.

 

[archited]

Now there's an alternate point of view that is shared by a large sector of society. When we start telling people what they want and where they have to live we are staring at something that I refer to as Planner's Syndrome. I would rather have Choice.

 

[yeggator]

I ain’t gonna lie @thommyjo, I like the idea of living in a condo or townhouse, but I can’t fathom not living next to the Henday. Sure, if I can get the best of both worlds where I live next to an LRT station AND the Henday, I’ll take it. But considering the ease of access to the whole city via the ring road, as well as the ease of getting in and out for my now-frequent road trips to the mountains, proximity to the Henday is non-negotiable.

 

[thommyjo]

Because that's were people want to live.

Many people want/can only afford high density who want neighbourhoods for things other than transit.

I love my condo, except for the fact I am next to the train and a major roadway. It's loud, stinks, and the racers/straight pipes ruin my kid's sleep at night. If I could buy the same condo mid block in a nice neighbourhood I would be in heaven and would happily pay twice the price. I don't want a house, I like condo living but the unappealing location of most central condos will drive us to a house when our kid is a few years older and needs some freedom. We moved here in part to be close to transit, but that has ended up meaning nothing to us as we don't travel downtown much and it's usually cheaper to drive anyway. Most stuff we want isn't along the train line.

This focus on only allowing high density along major routes and near transit really reinforces the idea that SFH are the preferred housing.

Again, im not saying we remove the tens of thousands of units that already exist in the suburbs and force people to live centrally. But there’s also synergies we aren’t capitalizing on between our transportation planning and land use. Going forward we should do better.

People claim they want good transit. You get that by concentrating density along transit corridors. Transit is only efficient when it runs along arterials and more direct routes, not winding through neighborhoods. People also want low traffic streets, but if you start adding hundreds of apartments to non arterials, poorly served by transit, your quieter suburban street is now much busier and loud.

As our city grows, becomes more congested, and the henday becomes slow and congested for 4-6hrs a day, not just 1-2, people’s values will start to shift and the tradeoff of factors will rebalance towards TOD.

Building car dependent density 800m from transit, but 200m away having SFHs or empty dirt, makes no sense to me. That’s how you build an ugly, boring, and inefficient city.

I feel like people here maybe haven’t experienced good TODs like in Vancouver. Building complete neighborhoods adjacent to high frequency transit is awesome. But enjoy the stick frame overlooking a surface parking lot and the henday I guess…

 

[Coprolite]

An interesting point - why are we having so much mid block development in residential areas now that is obviously disrupting and upsetting people who live there a lot, instead of focusing on TOD and developments on more major streets?

This is through out the city, for instance, the lot on 109 Street and 83 Ave has been vacant for many years, yet houses are now being torn down a block or half a block away to build new multi residential buildings.

One of the first orders of business for our new council is surely to do some clean up on our current wild west zoning situation.

Because the corner of 83 Ave and 109 Street would have miserable traffic noise and will be rather unattractive to residential development, and not living on terrible stroads is something people enjoy. Meanwhile, if you have missing middle density midblock, you're still within walking distance of the bus.

Also, our most recent election shows that the people who are upset about row houses in their neighbourhood (at least in mature neighbourhoods) are just weird coots and their anger is either not representative or it just can't be bothered to vote. We can absolutely stop taking these weirdos seriously and actually build a decent number of row houses in the core and it will be just fine.

 

[Coprolite]

People claim they want good transit. You get that by concentrating density along transit corridors. Transit is only efficient when it runs along arterials and more direct routes, not winding through neighborhoods. People also want low traffic streets, but if you start adding hundreds of apartments to non arterials, poorly served by transit, your quieter suburban street is now much busier and loud.

By this logic, Wîhkwêntôwin side streets would be a traffic-clogged hell-hole, but they actually aren't. You can absolutely run transit down the arterials and have density on the side streets. You just don't build the side streets to raceway standards and give them a form that's walkable and it turns out that mass traffic doesn't actually come down the side streets. Our mature neighbourhoods have a very well designed street grid for that approach where you can just walk down the street from your apartment to the arterial to catch transit.

 

[kcantor]

Now there's an alternate point of view that is shared by a large sector of society. When we start telling people what they want and where they have to live we are staring at something that I refer to as Planner's Syndrome. I would rather have Choice.

That of course would lead to Houston as being the paragon of success in liveable city building.

 

[kcantor]

Because the corner of 83 Ave and 109 Street would have miserable traffic noise and will be rather unattractive to residential development, and not living on terrible stroads is something people enjoy. Meanwhile, if you have missing middle density midblock, you're still within walking distance of the bus.

Also, our most recent election shows that the people who are upset about row houses in their neighbourhood (at least in mature neighbourhoods) are just weird coots and their anger is either not representative or it just can't be bothered to vote. We can absolutely stop taking these weirdos seriously and actually build a decent number of row houses in the core and it will be just fine.

I don't think it's row houses that have people upset...