[Surrealplaces]

The triangle property is slated to be about 30% of the project and the project is slated to be around 100 units, but may be a bit more or less depending on what kind of density the developer gets. There is another affordable housing project slated for 14th ave and it has 26 units....however the C A is in full opposition to it. Worries about having too many affordable units on one street lol.

A very good point. Surreal was mentioning that the Triangle site in Sunnyside will be going out for RFP's soon and has to include an affordable housing component. I wonder how many units were in Kensington Manor and could Triangle absorb all of them or would they come up short?

To a degree. There's a high cost with new construction. It will make more sense to pull the units from the market than actively seek tenants if it drops too low.

 

[Beltline_B]

The city has on ongoing plan for affordable housing with various developments in play.

http://www.calgary.ca/CS/OLSH/Pages/Affordable-housing/Current-housing-developments.aspx

How do we ensure we keep building? It's already being speculated that rising interest rates will drive dollars away from real estate development.

 

[Social Justice]

To a degree. There's a high cost with new construction. It will make more sense to pull the units from the market than actively seek tenants if it drops too low.

Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean by 'pull the units from the market'?

 

[Surrealplaces]

The city has on ongoing plan for affordable housing with various developments in play.

http://www.calgary.ca/CS/OLSH/Pages/Affordable-housing/Current-housing-developments.aspx

There are also other non-city of Calgary affordable housing developments. I wonder if there is a resource that has the total number of affordable housing units under development?

 

[maestro]

I'm not really sure. Units purposely left vacant. They don't contribute to supply. They are off the market. This is already as much as 5 to 10% of the total inventory in some cities.

 

[Social Justice]

I'm not really sure. Units purposely left vacant. They don't contribute to supply. They are off the market. This is already as much as 5 to 10% of the total inventory in some cities.

Why would a landlord purposely leave a condo unit vacant? Wouldn't it make sense to try and rent it out even if you are still losing money?

Example:
If the total cost of a unit is $1000/mo. (condo fees, property taxes, mortgage) and I rent it out for $500/mo I lose $500 each month...however, it's still better than losing $1000/mo.

 

[Social Justice]

I'm not really sure. Units purposely left vacant. They don't contribute to supply. They are off the market. This is already as much as 5 to 10% of the total inventory in some cities.

Perhaps those vacancies are people that travel to Calgary for business once a year or so and have a Condo to stay in. I heard some companies buy units for that purpose.

 

[Beltline_B]

By ‘vacant’, do you mean units that are on rented, or units that are rented but have no tenants?

I'm not really sure. Units purposely left vacant. They don't contribute to supply. They are off the market. This is already as much as 5 to 10% of the total inventory in some cities.

 

[maestro]

Why would a landlord purposely leave a condo unit vacant? Wouldn't it make sense to try and rent it out even if you are still losing money?

Example:
If the total cost of a unit is $1000/mo. (condo fees, property taxes, mortgage) and I rent it out for $500/mo I lose $500 each month...however, it's still better than losing $1000/mo.

There's a number of reasons not to rent. You may not want to incur damage. You may not want to be locked into a lease agreement. In other words, the margins is just not worth the hassle. These weren't purchased as income properties. These were purchased as growth investments. It's not a problem yet in Calgary. In Toronto, Vancouver, Australia, California it's the different between a balanced housing supply and a shortage of housing.

 

[Just build it]

Apparently sometime this morning, the city is set to announce what they’re doing with the old science centre. I’m curious to see what the plan is. Does anyone have any guesses?

 

[Social Justice]

There's a number of reasons not to rent. You may not want to incur damage. You may not want to be locked into a lease agreement. In other words, the margins is just not worth the hassle. These weren't purchased as income properties. These were purchased as growth investments. It's not a problem yet in Calgary. In Toronto, Vancouver, Australia, California it's the different between a balanced housing supply and a shortage of housing.

That's a good point. However, I think that scenario can only be achieved if the price of condos is increasing, then the investor can eat the costs. If the price is static or declining it would make sense to dump the property or rent it out.

Sorry, I think we're on a tangent now. My original point was that we don't really have a housing affordability crisis in Calgary.

 

[Mountain Man]

Apparently sometime this morning, the city is set to announce what they’re doing with the old science centre. I’m curious to see what the plan is. Does anyone have any guesses?

Sounds like a contemporary art gallery. http://calgaryherald.com/news/local...allery-to-find-home-in-centennial-planetarium Glad the made the Contemporary Calgary thing work out in the end!

I hope Mewata Armoury can become a public building in the future, would be a great cultural amenity with the Art Gallery and Millenium Park right there.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Nice to see something happening with the old science centre. I think it's a good start towards Calgary finally getting a dedicated art gallery.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Why would a landlord purposely leave a condo unit vacant? Wouldn't it make sense to try and rent it out even if you are still losing money?

Example:
If the total cost of a unit is $1000/mo. (condo fees, property taxes, mortgage) and I rent it out for $500/mo I lose $500 each month...however, it's still better than losing $1000/mo.

Unless dumping $500/mo units onto the market would end up driving down rents more generally. The real estate business ultimately makes its profit as property values increase. That's why we can't rely on the rules of supply and demand to lower rents/property values. If supply is outstripping demand and property values are going down, better to sit on a property and withhold additional supply until demand goes back up.

 

[retrofiturbanism]

There's a number of reasons not to rent. You may not want to incur damage. You may not want to be locked into a lease agreement. In other words, the margins is just not worth the hassle. These weren't purchased as income properties. These were purchased as growth investments. It's not a problem yet in Calgary. In Toronto, Vancouver, Australia, California it's the different between a balanced housing supply and a shortage of housing.

This seems odd. Other than foreign investors parking money outside of their country (which happens, I know) it seems strange to imply people spend money on an income generating asset, just to not have it generate any income. I understand short term vacancies- i.e. you just moved out and want to sell, so don't want a lease agreement messing up a sales agreement. But to just forego income because.... reasons?

That being said, supply restrictions in places like California have resulted in massive increases to property value. In places like San Francisco and San Jose, a real estate investment makes you more money in property appreciation than most incomes. Which is why supply restrictions are terrible. It is not the governments job to make you a return on your real estate investment at the expense of everyone else.