News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Could be related to that. Also, I wonder if those prices are median vs average? Calgary has a higher amount of high end properties and it tends to skew the average a bit.

Would be interesting to see a graph over the last 30-50 years. I'm old enough to remember the days when Edmonton prices were actually higher.
I wonder how much this has to do with age of housing supply too - Edmonton's population exceeded Calgary by anywhere from 10 - 30% for all the censuses between 1941s and 1971 - the first boom era of single family homes, which is often the asset used for these city-city comparisons.Put another way, Edmonton built several tens of thousands more units in this first era of mass suburbanization. That's a big supply difference in the two markets.

Like Calgary, some of these older Edmonton homes have since have been replaced, but there is many more of them and therefore a larger price gradient has formed between the replaced houses, refurbished, not refurbished. I would assume this larger supply of older units drags the average price down as they tend to have fewer modern amenities, be smaller, and therefore command a lower price (unless in trendy historic areas).

Combine this with the demand-side high income office professional boom that centred in Calgary following this era, and it makes sense that Calgary's prices have trended relatively higher - slightly higher wages competing for slightly newer (on average) housing stock. Then throw in the layer of waves of exogenous demand from rich buyers from elsewhere (which recently has favoured Calgary, at least anecdotally) and it paints a picture why Edmonton's price growth has lagged.

Lots of layers to the housing onion - but from the supply side, most Canadian cities affordable housing issues comes back to how much housing they built 50+ years at what quality, density and design. The cheapest time to build affordable housing is always 50 years ago.
 
View attachment 445580
I had no idea the average price was so different from Calgary to Edmonton.
It’s so funny to see certain places (Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Windsor, etc) still valued so much higher than Calgary even during a price collapse. Ontario is absolutely whack, I’ll never be able to move back. 🥲

The Calgary / Edmonton price difference makes perfect sense to me.
 
Could be related to that. Also, I wonder if those prices are median vs average? Calgary has a higher amount of high end properties and it tends to skew the average a bit.

Would be interesting to see a graph over the last 30-50 years. I'm old enough to remember the days when Edmonton prices were actually higher.
Yeah, I'd be interested to know too, I can very well see higher end properties skewing the Calgary average up a bit
 
Edmonton's population exceeded Calgary by anywhere from 10 - 30% for all the censuses between 1941s and 1971 - the first boom era of single family homes, which is often the asset used for these city-city comparisons.Put another way, Edmonton built several tens of thousands more units in this first era of mass suburbanization. That's a big supply difference in the two markets.
I have nothing to back this up but didn't Calgary's big boom happen from 1995-2015 (ish)?

I don't think that era of community has aged very well at all. It's full of front-drive homes with no character and not much charm, plus the actual community designs prioritized maximizing those single-family homes and sprinkled in some strip malls to really depress you. I'm wondering as more new and better designed suburban communities are built, if homes from that 20-year time span will lose value and a lot of it.

My theory is even a updated/renovated home from that era is nowhere near as in-demand as a renovated home from the communities built pre-1990. Because at least those pre-1990 homes are closer to built-up amenities and city services. Meanwhile new and better designed communities can ride the wave of new home prices, plus they're new and better designed and not that much more inconvenient than homes built in that boom era. The 1995-2015 (ish) era mistakes will be very difficult to fix over time too; the main streets program surely will not help them become more livable.

In the years ahead as people who bought those homes when they were new, raised their kids, and are now looking to downsize and put the house on the market, maybe we will see Calgary's price drop. Granted demand for pre-1990 could push prices up and people moving to Calgary could also offset any losses in value seen from home of the 1995-2000 (ish) era.
 
I am not sure. I feel that 90s communities that are full of cul-de-sacs will be in demand with families. Cul-de-sacs are few and far between in newer communities due to City policy, but they still seem to be a very desireable lot style for young families. I expect as the houses of the 90s get about 10-15 years older, you will see many of them being bought and fully renovated.
 
I have nothing to back this up but didn't Calgary's big boom happen from 1995-2015 (ish)?

I don't think that era of community has aged very well at all. It's full of front-drive homes with no character and not much charm, plus the actual community designs prioritized maximizing those single-family homes and sprinkled in some strip malls to really depress you. I'm wondering as more new and better designed suburban communities are built, if homes from that 20-year time span will lose value and a lot of it.

My theory is even a updated/renovated home from that era is nowhere near as in-demand as a renovated home from the communities built pre-1990. Because at least those pre-1990 homes are closer to built-up amenities and city services. Meanwhile new and better designed communities can ride the wave of new home prices, plus they're new and better designed and not that much more inconvenient than homes built in that boom era. The 1995-2015 (ish) era mistakes will be very difficult to fix over time too; the main streets program surely will not help them become more livable.

In the years ahead as people who bought those homes when they were new, raised their kids, and are now looking to downsize and put the house on the market, maybe we will see Calgary's price drop. Granted demand for pre-1990 could push prices up and people moving to Calgary could also offset any losses in value seen from home of the 1995-2000 (ish) era.
Calgary and Edmonton are both getting increasingly dragged down by the communities you mentioned, but I would extended to say most 1970 - 2000 communities is where our biggest problem is. We have like 50% of the city's land area in a "declining" ring where populations continue to drop, buildings continue to age and redevelopment is unlikely to come very quickly to all these areas as the supply is so huge. This area has seen enormous population decline as the average number of people per house continued to drop.

The central issue is these areas were mostly built single-use residential at extremely low intensities, with limited obvious redevelopment. It's a non-resilient design and it's proving out in real estate markets.

If your neighbourhood was built for 10,000 people in 1970 but only 5,000 people live there today - likely your shops are schools are closing from ever-lower demand. This triggers the negative feedback cycle - lower quality amenities, and outdated housing stock makes the area less likely to attract attention from either gentrifying or redevelopment forces. Stagnation and decline is the path these areas are on.

So you are a stagnating and declining neighbourhood, what now? I see these 1970s - 2000 communities having three options:
  • Renovate - fix up the housing ad-hoc, as each owner decides what to remodel and when. This will keep some of the housing stock competitive with brand new housing elsewhere and is relatively cheap. There may be specific attractors that help some areas retain popularity better than others (@MichaelS cul-de-sac example). This doesn't solve the bigger picture - renovations alone are not likely won't create enough growth to re-open a school, but may attract enough to keep one from closing - it "soft-lands" a community into a lower intensity for medium-term stability.
  • Gentrify - try to become the "next Mount Royal". Large land plots where the high cost of maintenance is compensated for by increasingly attract wealthy, single-family home owners. This is the market for 1-to-1 redevelopment beyond just piece meal renovations - 1 small, obsolete house is replaced with 1 large, expensive house redevelopment. Gaps in local services that exist due to lack of population are somewhat compensated for by much higher local spending (e.g. 1 rich household buys dinners out 5 times a week, offsetting 7 middle-income households that used to only go out for dinner once a week).
  • Redevelop & densify - start replacing obsolete housing with newer, more competitive and more diverse housing types so the market demand your neighbourhood caters to is getting bigger and wider. This is the process well underway in the pre-1970 areas of the city. Replace large, obsolete homes with a duplex or some townhomes. Add an apartment block here and there. Build back up the local population enough that retail is starting to be attracted, new clusters of jobs and activities form and new main streets develop. This triggers a positive feedback loop - greater amenities and options supported by greater populations, makes the area more attractive for yet more people and more amenities.
All these options take money and overall population growth - as long as both continue, the paths are open. However, the only long-term solution is the redevelop and intensify option - resilient, sustainable communities need more housing diversity and higher density that simply wasn't built into most of our 1970s - 2000 era communities. Through diversity of housing options and price points at a sufficiently high intensity, communities are far more likely to be resilient to future economic changes and continually be able to re-invent themselves, while maintaining their attractive services and amenities.

Demand is limited though - not everywhere is in enough demand to be redeveloped, not enough rich people exist to gentrify every community, not all homeowners can afford renovations. The result is you'll see a wide spectrum of 1970s-2000s community outcomes and some seem likely to continue to stagnate and decline.
 
I feel that 90s communities that are full of cul-de-sacs will be in demand with families.
This is really sad to me. Although it is safer since your kids can ride their bike and play in the street, it's otherwise quite horrible for the community because it cuts the community up into bubbles. To me that doesn't make a community. It dissuades you from breaking that buddle and interacting more with the parks and businesses outside your bubble. Not to mention the fact that residents here likely tell their kids to only stay in the cul-de-sac, limiting them and scaring them from getting outside their 'safe' bubble. There's also the fact that this just feeds into the local strip mall being 100% car focused and lacking any vibrancy.

As a south Calgary resident since 1997...
Renovate - fix up the housing ad-hoc, as each owner decides what to remodel and when. This will keep some of the housing stock competitive with brand new housing elsewhere and is relatively cheap. There may be specific attractors that help some areas retain popularity better than others (@MichaelS cul-de-sac example). This doesn't solve the bigger picture - renovations alone are not likely won't create enough growth to re-open a school, but may attract enough to keep one from closing - it "soft-lands" a community into a lower intensity for medium-term stability.
I read this and think Acadia and Haysboro. Things are changing their but not through teardowns. Some retail is coming back and the community will survive but it's not being pushed into the ideal community (see below). Meanwhile an Ogden will only see this on a small scale and prices there will continue to fall, even with the Green Line.

Gentrify - try to become the "next Mount Royal". Large land plots where the high cost of maintenance is compensated for by increasingly attract wealthy, single-family home owners. This is the market for 1-to-1 redevelopment beyond just piece meal renovations - 1 small, obsolete house is replaced with 1 large, expensive house redevelopment. Gaps in local services that exist due to lack of population are somewhat compensated for by much higher local spending (e.g. 1 rich household buys dinners out 5 times a week, offsetting 7 middle-income households that used to only go out for dinner once a week).
For this one I think of Lake Bonavista. People want to live there because of the existing amenities and the large lots allow for 1-to-1 Mount Royal style upgrades. A negative though is that the promenade shopping thing could struggle to survive if it isn't updated and I assume will be torn down to make way for a still car-centric 'High Street' like in Mackenzie Towne. What you could see is the neighboring communities to Lake Bonavista fall off because they either don't have the lot size or the immediate amenities, I think Queensland, Deer Ridge and Deer Run, even though there is a power centre there (there's a reason No Frills has a location in that power centre)

Redevelop & densify - start replacing obsolete housing with newer, more competitive and more diverse housing types so the market demand your neighbourhood caters to is getting bigger and wider. This is the process well underway in the pre-1970 areas of the city. Replace large, obsolete homes with a duplex or some townhomes. Add an apartment block here and there. Build back up the local population enough that retail is starting to be attracted, new clusters of jobs and activities form and new main streets develop. This triggers a positive feedback loop - greater amenities and options supported by greater populations, makes the area more attractive for yet more people and more amenities.
And for this one I think Altadore/Marda Loop, this is ideal for the community as long as the local association doesn't end up winning their losing battle.
 
Lake Bonavista promenade is weird, but it is pretty full. The Safeway might be the last 'neighbourhood' scale Safeway in the city. It has been only 1.4 km from another Safeway for ~40 years.

Lake Bonavista doesn't have a restrictive covenant, but if you lot split, you can only pass the Lake membership onto one of the properties.

As the city continues to grow, the question is whether LB starts to have some additional value driven by proximity, or whether it will remain tied 100% to amenity.
 

Attachments

  • 1671488826997.png
    1671488826997.png
    657.1 KB · Views: 32
The nice thing about LB and other 70s neighbourhoods is that the street network is not completely curvilinear - unllike the next wave of 'hoods when the city fully embraced road hierarchy (Sundance, Woodbine, Douglasdale etc.).

Acadia and Bonaventure are continuous neighbourhood scale thoroughfares that are pretty easily walkable from most places in the community. Properties along those streets will be well positioned for future intensification. I could see some type of high frequency transit along Acadia Drive and Fairmount all the way from Bonavista to Chinook in the future.

On the negative site, the C-Train station is essentially an afterthought in LB and there is zero connection between the commercial strip along Macleod and the rest of the neighbourhood.
 
It’s so funny to see certain places (Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Windsor, etc) still valued so much higher than Calgary even during a price collapse. Ontario is absolutely whack, I’ll never be able to move back. 🥲

The Calgary / Edmonton price difference makes perfect sense to me.

The only mistake those moving from BC to AB are making is selling in BC to buy in AB. Better off renting your BC place out and using the income to purchase in AB. Once your out its hard to get back in, which is what some people who are now looking to retire in BC from working career in AB are facing.
 
Edmonton is cheaper because it is more decentralized so location matters less, and has far more ex-urban, small towns and small cities within commuting distance as competition.
 
The only mistake those moving from BC to AB are making is selling in BC to buy in AB. Better off renting your BC place out and using the income to purchase in AB. Once your out its hard to get back in, which is what some people who are now looking to retire in BC from working career in AB are facing.
Depends on the cap rate is for those BC properties. I'd be surprised if it exceeds inflation. Best to sell, buy short duration government securities, wait out some of the asset devaluation cycle, buy a yield dividend yield ETF of blue chip equities and then rent if one were to return to BC.
 

Back
Top