News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.9K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.5K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Yeah, I can't really think of a relevant difference between Alberta and the rest of the prairies. Maybe that lot sizes are smaller, and the population is higher so demand for multifamily is higher? We use gas for our heating and appliances, but Saskatchewan does that too.
 
badc0ffee said:
Yeah, I can't really think of a relevant difference between Alberta and the rest of the prairies. Maybe that lot sizes are smaller, and the population is higher so demand for multifamily is higher? We use gas for our heating and appliances, but Saskatchewan does that too.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean they literally combined SK and MB together. So this has nothing to do with provincial jurisdictional differences. I think @darwink's hypothesis makes the most sense - it's just a political categorization to enable less red tape in each region by pointing to the existence of a "localized" housing catalogue in order to take away the argument that a "one-size fits all" approach is being taken. Perhaps it makes sense when viewed in this context.
 
Is this supposed to have detailed schematics and specifications of each pipe/part? Curious how many will be built using this catalogue. I'd think in Calgary, the design and construction is not the source of the construction risk, but in a small town where external expertise is less readily available.
 
trtcttc said:
Is this supposed to have detailed schematics and specifications of each pipe/part? Curious how many will be built using this catalogue. I'd think in Calgary, the design and construction is not the source of the construction risk, but in a small town where external expertise is less readily available.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised multi-family developers always seem to reinvent the wheel. I would think a developer like Sarina, who has done multiple similar size buildings on 33rd Ave SW wouldn't reuse a similar design with some exterior (non-engineering changes).
 
CalgaryTiger said:
I'm surprised multi-family developers always seem to reinvent the wheel. I would think a developer like Sarina, who has done multiple similar size buildings on 33rd Ave SW wouldn't reuse a similar design with some exterior (non-engineering changes).
Click to expand...
Isn't that what most of them do? Especially the 5+1 apartments. And for rowhouses, they usually just have a different exterior design but it's basically the same.
 
At the R-CG level, design is not even close to being a bottleneck, and most developers are already essentially pulling from a catalogue anyway. Which is in fact better for efficiency than some federal government catalogue, in that it's a product they've already worked through and are ready to replicate. The feds think it's 1965 and we can just grab a house plans magazine off the rack and send it to a truss supplier and build baby build.

The problem is trade availability and it's not trade availability by way of lack of trades, it's the skill degradation epidemic.
 
haltcatchfire said:
At the R-CG level, design is not even close to being a bottleneck, and most developers are already essentially pulling from a catalogue anyway. Which is in fact better for efficiency than some federal government catalogue, in that it's a product they've already worked through and are ready to replicate. The feds think it's 1965 and we can just grab a house plans magazine off the rack and send it to a truss supplier and build baby build.

The problem is trade availability and it's not trade availability by way of lack of trades, it's the skill degradation epidemic.
Click to expand...
The feds don't want to have to hire a boat load of experts to check whether municipalities are lying to them about being open to building new housing. Because plenty have said they have opened up to more density, but the results are mixed. In BC, Victoria's changes they highlighted as leading moves for affordability have contradictory components that make it almost impossible to comply with. Or you set the minimum lot width as wider than the standard lot size for your municipality, and one that doesn't divide right, so you would always have waste even if you assembled lets say 3 lots to build 4. Which also, doesn't provide enough lift to make the economics work.

So, the feds come and say 'show me how your density plan would allow one of these 8 types of densification on 80% of your single family lots'.

It is a lot easier for the feds to ask the municipalities to show their work, than for the feds to prove that an individual municipality undermined housing development. The local Mayors will always claim market conditions, demand, blah blah.

The context of these is a decade of municipalities asking for more and more housing resources and the federal government getting more and more frustrated as the municipalities fail to spend the money they are given, and reject housing left, right and centre.

And yeah, you go back in clippings from the 40s, there are stories about the city, whether they should provide zoning for the new federal led group of cookie cutter housing, countering with, if they don't, the money just goes elsewhere. It was always this fight!

Now, out of politeness, the federal government doesn't go out and flamethrower municipalities over this. In the end, the municipalities have to deliver all the stuff, and the provinces have to help them along. Last thing you need is the provinces somehow allying with the municipalities to prevent housing being built, even more than today.
 
darwink said:
The feds don't want to have to hire a boat load of experts to check whether municipalities are lying to them about being open to building new housing. Because plenty have said they have opened up to more density, but the results are mixed. In BC, Victoria's changes they highlighted as leading moves for affordability have contradictory components that make it almost impossible to comply with. Or you set the minimum lot width as wider than the standard lot size for your municipality, and one that doesn't divide right, so you would always have waste even if you assembled lets say 3 lots to build 4. Which also, doesn't provide enough lift to make the economics work.

So, the feds come and say 'show me how your density plan would allow one of these 8 types of densification on 80% of your single family lots'.

It is a lot easier for the feds to ask the municipalities to show their work, than for the feds to prove that an individual municipality undermined housing development. The local Mayors will always claim market conditions, demand, blah blah.

The context of these is a decade of municipalities asking for more and more housing resources and the federal government getting more and more frustrated as the municipalities fail to spend the money they are given, and reject housing left, right and centre.

And yeah, you go back in clippings from the 40s, there are stories about the city, whether they should provide zoning for the new federal led group of cookie cutter housing, countering with, if they don't, the money just goes elsewhere. It was always this fight!

Now, out of politeness, the federal government doesn't go out and flamethrower municipalities over this. In the end, the municipalities have to deliver all the stuff, and the provinces have to help them along. Last thing you need is the provinces somehow allying with the municipalities to prevent housing being built, even more than today.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you quoted me as municipal policy is a totally separate issue to my comment.
 
darwink said:
The feds don't want to have to hire a boat load of experts to check whether municipalities are lying to them about being open to building new housing. Because plenty have said they have opened up to more density, but the results are mixed. In BC, Victoria's changes they highlighted as leading moves for affordability have contradictory components that make it almost impossible to comply with. Or you set the minimum lot width as wider than the standard lot size for your municipality, and one that doesn't divide right, so you would always have waste even if you assembled lets say 3 lots to build 4. Which also, doesn't provide enough lift to make the economics work.

So, the feds come and say 'show me how your density plan would allow one of these 8 types of densification on 80% of your single family lots'.

It is a lot easier for the feds to ask the municipalities to show their work, than for the feds to prove that an individual municipality undermined housing development. The local Mayors will always claim market conditions, demand, blah blah.

The context of these is a decade of municipalities asking for more and more housing resources and the federal government getting more and more frustrated as the municipalities fail to spend the money they are given, and reject housing left, right and centre.

And yeah, you go back in clippings from the 40s, there are stories about the city, whether they should provide zoning for the new federal led group of cookie cutter housing, countering with, if they don't, the money just goes elsewhere. It was always this fight!

Now, out of politeness, the federal government doesn't go out and flamethrower municipalities over this. In the end, the municipalities have to deliver all the stuff, and the provinces have to help them along. Last thing you need is the provinces somehow allying with the municipalities to prevent housing being built, even more than today.
Click to expand...
Housing is so hyper-local that the Feds should have exactly zero involvement and provide zero funding
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top