News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Mull said:
Isn't hundreds of millions of federal dollars tied to this change going through, if so, it doesn't seem like a publicity stunt by Council at least? Or would your proposed changes listed in what I quoted also allow the City to obtain that money?
Click to expand...
Long post (sorry), and my conclusion is yes.

From the City:
The City has been awarded $228.5 million for the funding of seven initiatives to deliver 6,825 units over and above our three-year average growth under the Council approved Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) Action Plan. The funding is distributed to the City in four equal annual advances until the closure of the program in Sept 1, 2026.
Click to expand...

In the contribution agreement, it includes:
Whereas:The recipient has applied to receive funding under HAF and, in sup[port of its application, has submitted a proposed action plan that sets out action items, initiatives and targets the the Recipient will undertake and/or achieve to remove systemic barriers to housing supply and boost supply in the Community.
Click to expand...
...
Section A of the Approved Action Plan sets out various initiatives and action items that the Recipient has committed to undertake and complete
Click to expand...
...
The Recipient will undertake and complete the initiatives and the Housing Needs Assessment Report, as applicable, by no later than the second anniversary of the Effective Date, or within the timelines set out in the Approved Action Plan under Schedule A, or as otherwise permitted by CMHC.
Click to expand...
...
The Recipient agrees to undertake and complete the Commitments subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement
Click to expand...
...
The Recipient is solely responsible for obtaining any approvals which may be required to implement the Commitments in the timeline necessary to meet the deadlines for completion
Click to expand...
...
If the Recipient is not able to satisfy the conditions for an advance set out, then CMHC may, in its sole discretion, withhold HAF FUnding or reduce HAF funding.
Click to expand...
...
Initiative 3: Streamline Approvals to increase housing supply
Click to expand...

The HAF Action Plan approved by Council, provides more detail:
1714072675738.png
Click to expand...
 
MichaelS said:
No. This was the first question at the very start of the hearing on Monday morning by Councilor Demong. The Federal funds are NOT contingent on this rezoning happening.
Click to expand...
This answer was not the whole truth. The city has money in hand today (1/4 of the total), and it wouldn't be clawed back. It is unlikely the entire remaining fund would be held back, but a good portion would be at risk.
 
Should the rezoning go through, will there be more houses built? Is there available labour to build at a higher rate than is currently being built? Or will it be similar numbers but spread around the city a bit differently to take advantage of more profitable lots that weren't available before?
 
JoeUrban said:
Should the rezoning go through, will there be more houses built? Is there available labour to build at a higher rate than is currently being built? Or will it be similar numbers but spread around the city a bit differently to take advantage of more profitable lots that weren't available before?
Click to expand...
The capital and labour allocation will be different, as it will change how much profit may be available per a given project. Instead of a 3600 square foot 1-1 replacement being the most profitable rebuild, a duplex with garage units could be the most profitable (and also less risky, with lower price points, a more active market). Does having very fancy amenities needed to justify a near $2 million price point require a lot of extra trades? Sure does. 4 units ranging from $400 to $800k? Perhaps not. The city's economists estimate the zoning change will increase unit production over 4 years by 2,500 or 37% of the incremental units under various HAF Actions.
 
Red Star said:
I think it's myopic to think that a blanket rezoning of SFH to row housing will put a significant dent in housing affordability. Yes, we are in an affordability crisis. An affordability crisis created by the ruling class. The issues are structural and go much deeper than simply zoning laws. Obviously supply and demand dictate price.

Demand:

1. Record levels of population increase due to mass migration
-The elites of this country are importing cheap labor to suppress wages and increase aggregate consumer demand. These new workers need a place to live.

View attachment 558957
View attachment 558987
View attachment 558989


Supply:

1. High material cost
-Lead times and material costs in the construction industry are still ridiculously long/high. They've improved slightly since Covid, but not enough. I think many manufacturers and suppliers are taking advantageous of this to pad their profit margins.

2. Energy Code Requirements
-The 2020 National Energy Code has more stringent energy requirements. Walls and roofs require a higher R value, more complex mechanical systems. You know those 1960's commie blocks that would have one giant boiler in the basement that provides radiant heat to the building? Those could never be built now as they don't meet air exchange requirements. You'd have to install an HRV Even a four-plex is subject to National Energy Code and energy modeling requirements. All these additional measures increase the cost of construction.

3. Financing
-With a key interest rate of 5% many developers are probably not wanting to risk investing in residential.

4. Land
-Within the inner city and downtown Calgary there is already a tremendous inventory of vacant/underutilized land. Why re-zone and demolish existing housing stock when there is already vacant brownfield sites ripe for re-development? Below is a great example. There is a full 8 city blocks ripe for residential development. Why not create incentives to focus development near employment centers and C-train lines rather than in suburban neighborhoods with with existing single family homes?
View attachment 558993
Click to expand...
yes, i totally agree with you, i see a lot of empty space and parking lots. why dont we just use those land first.
the 9 ave is somewhere great location for high residential towers, how come nobody developing that area.
 
I don't think rezoning will suddenly solve housing affordability and this big fight is not really going to change things either way, similar to the basement suites. The unit count is just too low. But I think the people picking every empty lot and say do this first, that isn't how development works. There's a lot of different factors, market conditions, ownership, rates, trade availability, etc. that affect whether a project goes ahead. The benefit of rowhousing is that it will densify neighborhoods that isn't suitable for 25 floor towers. I know most people are opposed in these neighborhoods but personally I am looking forward to this change. The reality is most of these neighborhoods are losing residents, since older people generally prefer to stay. Without new housing built that young people can afford, these areas will slowly decline.

I had suggested committing to tax freeze/decrease to convince people on rezoning, but I don't see how the city can't dangle infrastructure dollars for rezoning. If your city hits this many residents or this many units built, we'll fund the main street program, signalized crosswalks, new curb cutouts, increase transit frequency, etc. One common complaint I hear from people in my area is that despite increase in density (new apartments and rowhouses being built) in our area, the city has not funded many of the community projects that are needed. One request was to change painted lanes to protected lanes that are used by students going to school, unfunded. Increase the bus frequency to PTN (it is listed as PTN on city maps but doesn't operate as such), unfunded.
 
trtcttc said:
this big fight is not really going to change things either way
Click to expand...
It is about changing the trajectory in a small (not really that small, still a projected 5% growth in unit production from the status quo path) way, that helps a fair amount over time. The only way to begin is by beginning.

There is no one thing that will suddenly solve housing affordability, because it was 40 things over 40 years that caused the crisis. But undoing those things over time will help to solve the problem over time.
 
darwink said:
There is no one thing that will suddenly solve housing affordability, because it was 40 things over 40 years that caused the crisis. But undoing those things over time will help to solve the problem over time.
Click to expand...
It still seems like the most impactful lever that could be pulled in the short term would be cutting back on Canadian immigration. It's something we have direct control over and would act as a relief valve to let Canadians and the development sector catches up.
 
DiscoStu said:
It still seems like the most impactful lever that could be pulled in the short term would be cutting back on Canadian immigration. It's something we have direct control over and would act as a relief valve to let Canadians and the development sector catches up.
Click to expand...
And the feds are doing that. Some of those will be felt quickly, some over longer. Quoting this so it doesn't take up much as much space for people that aren't interested. Sure you can complain and say that all the of the reversals below are the result of policies they put in place, but few were predicting the problems that resulted. The general consensus post covid was that there was a labour shortage, and that that was a big problem., and gotta say, problem solved. What was unexpected was the demand on the below pathways when opened up/continued, which was far more than expected.

Right now international students who stayed on using post graduate work permits are expiring.

For 2018 grads , and 2019 grads who had their permit length doubled, those permits will expire this year and next. 2021 grads will be expiring this year, and 2022 grads next year.

For entrants in 1 year programs, they will be gone in 2025, and not replaced at nearly the same number.

For new students, numbers will drop by 40% next year. (400,000 fewer). A fair number of last year's 2 year program entrants won't complete/return for the fall due to program changes.

For temporary foreign workers, the pathway is being narrowed big time. Last year it was near 400,000, next year it should be at least half of that.

The Ukrainian temporary pathway isn't accepting new applicants, and after July 1, I believe no new arrivals.

The Mexican visa issuance will reduce refugee claims from both Mexico and from south of mexico by a fair amount.

Hard to predict exactly, but I expect Canada's population growth will slow to a crawl, and perhaps even reverse due to these changes over the next 2 years.
Click to expand...
 
haltcatchfire said:
By my count that yellow stretch would fit a minimum of 16 towers. Height would not be an issue at any point of this stretch and actually a benefit as higher units receive more separation from the CP tracks below. Using the 554 unit count from a West Village tower we could have at least 8900 units alone in this section of the city. If only landholders didn’t sit on so much land potential.
Click to expand...
A big chunk of that yellow strip is going to be developed by One Properties, now that Metro Ford has relocated to Tara. Aren’t they going to be starting work on it in 2025?
 
MichaelS said:
One Properties has not submitted a DP yet, and I have heard that the Metro Ford site is not there main priority, hence why they have a permit for Beltline Block in for their next project. I imagine it will be a few years yet before we see anything on the Metro Ford site.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Well it makes sense they’d finish off the Beltline Block. Similar to Cidex having the 3rd West Village Tower being completed, before moving onto the Hat at Elbow (which I hope they change the podium design for, I like the height of 170m+ though)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top