Infill Development Discussion

[trtcttc]

A question for the various folks on here who have good perspectives on infilll development:

There are a handful of areas, like Rosedale, Hounsfield Heights and Roxboro (as well as the central part of Hillhurst not on 10th/14th/Kensington) that are today basically exclusively SFD. They have been getting redeveloped, but by a million dollar 70 year old house being replaced by a $4M new house that looks like a bunker or car dealership. Assuming the blanket rezoning passes, a lot of properties will be rezoned RC-1, permitting rowhouse-scale developments. In the medium term (say the next 10-20 years), will there actually be a significant number of this sort of intensified developments built in these areas?

The yes argument is that these are adjacent to areas where there is substantial intensification happening; Mount Pleasant has had something like 1/4 of its units built in the last decade, so why not Rosedale, which is closer to the downtown, has even nicer tree canopy and traffic calming, etc? The profit potential may be higher selling four rowhouses with four secondary suites than a single custom mansion, and the market is larger.

The no argument is that the land in these areas will be more expensive than in the areas that are seeing infill, and that even with land use changed, there is still the development permit process. And these are well-connected, well-resourced communities that will fight this sort of intensification, so why not just save the uncertainty and headaches and do your project somewhere that this is already pretty common.

Note, I'm just thinking about these specific high-wealth enclaves; a rezoning will pretty obviously cause intensification in the Capitol Hills and Killarneys of the world where it's already happening.

Thoughts? I'm genuinely unsure on this one.

A lot of it comes down to risk. A developer may make more on a multi-unit but the risk of community opposition isn't worth it since they're holding the loan on the purchase of the land throughout the entire process. A lot of these large single family infills are also pre-sold before construction. They only need 1 buyer and not 8.

There's actually a pretty good section here from Josh White, Director of City Planning on how this affects infills across the range of neighborhoods. His point was that this will result in more development in the less pricey neighborhoods for R-CG.

(starts at 22:30)

 

[trtcttc]

I think the more interesting neighbourhood to watch will be Upper Mount Royal. There are some MASSIVE lots there, that with R-CG zoning, you could put in a LOT of units. Maybe enough to overcome the high cost of land? Not sure, but I wonder how long it will be before we see someone try it? I know that not all of Upper Mount Royal will be rezoned right away because it is under a DC bylaw, but some of it isn't, and the City says it will be coming forward with a way to amend the DC bylawed areas as well.

Maybe I'm the outlier but why do people want to live in a multiplex in Mount Royal? The roads being wide and huge lots means it's not very walkable or have the community feel of an Altadore. And for the city, how many units are we going to get and is it worth fighting the opposition. The homes are generally nice in the area that there's very few teardown properties available where the existing unit cost is basically the land.

 

[Surrealplaces]

A question for the various folks on here who have good perspectives on infilll development:

There are a handful of areas, like Rosedale, Hounsfield Heights and Roxboro (as well as the central part of Hillhurst not on 10th/14th/Kensington) that are today basically exclusively SFD. They have been getting redeveloped, but by a million dollar 70 year old house being replaced by a $4M new house that looks like a bunker or car dealership. Assuming the blanket rezoning passes, a lot of properties will be rezoned RC-1, permitting rowhouse-scale developments. In the medium term (say the next 10-20 years), will there actually be a significant number of this sort of intensified developments built in these areas?

The yes argument is that these are adjacent to areas where there is substantial intensification happening; Mount Pleasant has had something like 1/4 of its units built in the last decade, so why not Rosedale, which is closer to the downtown, has even nicer tree canopy and traffic calming, etc? The profit potential may be higher selling four rowhouses with four secondary suites than a single custom mansion, and the market is larger.

The no argument is that the land in these areas will be more expensive than in the areas that are seeing infill, and that even with land use changed, there is still the development permit process. And these are well-connected, well-resourced communities that will fight this sort of intensification, so why not just save the uncertainty and headaches and do your project somewhere that this is already pretty common.

Note, I'm just thinking about these specific high-wealth enclaves; a rezoning will pretty obviously cause intensification in the Capitol Hills and Killarneys of the world where it's already happening.

Thoughts? I'm genuinely unsure on this one.

I'm wondering if we'll see more densification in areas from the 50's and 60's with single family homes on large lots such as Brentwood, Thorncliffe, Haysboro. Not new development of row homes so much as duplexes or fourplexes, but maybe rowhomes along busier streets like Northmount or Elbow Drive. Could see development of up to 8 units per lot, but the lot would have to be pretty large.

 

[CBBarnett]

I'm wondering if we'll see more densification in areas from the 50's and 60's with single family homes on large lots such as Brentwood, Thorncliffe, Haysboro. Not new development of row homes so much as duplexes or fourplexes, but maybe rowhomes along busier streets like Northmount or Elbow Drive. Could see development of up to 8 units per lot, but the lot would have to be pretty large.

From what I recall about the studies I read from Auckland who successfully did this citywide approach to allow incremental density everywhere:

1. The biggest growth in housing production was in popular middle income neighbourhoods. The reason was it had a proven market (but was artificially constrained by slow spot zoning processes like ours). Prices were high but not prohibitively so developers could enter easily and make projects work.

2. Extremely weathly neighbourhoods actually saw little change, but their values decrease slightly - this was because of layers of other protections, legal issues and political compromises that made the citywide rezoning ineffective there. The land price dropped relatively, because unlike the rest of the city, you couldn’t really build to the new density regardless of the change.

3. Extremely poor neighbourhoods also saw little change. Reason was no market - essentially growth was not constrained by regulation.

Each city is different so it’s hard to point to how citywide zoning would impact us. But if I had to guess we should be looking at popular neighbourhoods that have rapidly increasing pricing, relatively slow or modest infill. So essentially much of the regular neighbourhoods seeing infill today plus a cluster around U of C.

 

[potatopizzafan]

New infill proposal in South Calgary, noticed people moving out of the existing buildings recently so figured something new was coming. Looks awful but a decent little density boost.

DMAP

 

[darwink]

The no argument is that the land in these areas will be more expensive than in the areas that are seeing infill, and that even with land use changed

So it is an interesting one. Have to think about filtering. Communities where people are moving into their ‘forever home’ turn over at a far lower rate. So fewer opportunities to upzone. Then you have land costs versus structure cost. The location (and land cost!) has to be incredible to realize upside. At this price point. A $1.3 million townhome ain’t gonna provide that in many areas. A monster SFH is likely going to provide more upside unless you have the perfect lot. For the duplex, you also have higher development costs: two high end kitchens, two primary ensuites; engineering to fit additional parking; subdivision costs; utility costs.

The most expensive duplex listed in the city right now is $2 million.
Check out this listing

https://realtor.ca/real-estate/26603291/3812-2-street-sw-calgary-parkhill?utm_source=consumerapp&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=socialsharelisting

The lot has a view, a central location, and an alley. The other unit has a worse view so would be less.

A development site is down the road. $1.5 million. Would you do that seeing typical duplexes at $1.5 in the area?

edit: as others noted above, that creates interesting patterns: density comes when land prices are high, but not too high

 

[Beazley66]

Hi everyone,
I have not posted anything in quite some time, so apologies. I had a question for anyone here who might know. The Stewart Livery project ,way out of the ground, has slowed to a complete crawl. I saw that the BP might be on hold? Anyone know? My fears grow as that what appears to be remedial work in the form of poorly designed firewalls seems to be in play. I did not see that in the original proposal. I have photos, but can't upload right now. Wondering if any one knew anything, or if I missed a design update. (Last week a contractor had his family in the construction zone, including 5-8year olds, in a zone with a 00000 safety rating. ie wide open) A little worried about the project. The firewall formwork looks a little late right about now.

 

[Surrealplaces]

Hi everyone,
I have not posted anything in quite some time, so apologies. I had a question for anyone here who might know. The Stewart Livery project ,way out of the ground, has slowed to a complete crawl. I saw that the BP might be on hold? Anyone know? My fears grow as that what appears to be remedial work in the form of poorly designed firewalls seems to be in play. I did not see that in the original proposal. I have photos, but can't upload right now. Wondering if any one knew anything, or if I missed a design update. (Last week a contractor had his family in the construction zone, including 5-8year olds, in a zone with a 00000 safety rating. ie wide open) A little worried about the project. The firewall formwork looks a little late right about now.

Hey @Beazley66 good to hear from you. Unfortunately I haven't heard anything about it, bit hope it hasn't gone off the rails.

 

[Alex_YYC]

The infills across from Hudson are topped out now.

 

[Alex_YYC]

Not a typical infill, but infill type housing at Currie.
The original plan of a dozen high rise towers is probably going to look more like this. Personally I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Surrealplaces]

2 -3 towers in the 12-20 floor range would be good, but I also like this kind of density.

 

[Mull]

Would that be an indicator of a weakening condo market if a developer chose to not do density in a approved higher density parcel?

 

[Chinese_T]

Would that be an indicator of a weakening condo market if a developer chose to not do density in a approved higher density parcel?

Not a typical infill, but infill type housing at Currie.
The original plan of a dozen high rise towers is probably going to look more like this. Personally I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing.

View attachment 554224View attachment 554226

Well, this site was always zoned for townhomes. I wouldn't be surprised if other sites were downscaled in the future, though.

 

[trtcttc]

I know Currie hasn’t really taken off, was it just overly ambitious? Or just not enough demand for housing there?

 

[Surrealplaces]

I know Currie hasn’t really taken off, was it just overly ambitious? Or just not enough demand for housing there?

A combo of both I think. I always thought the finished build would look a lot less dense than the rendering, with less high-rise towers, but I thought the build would be quicker, given it was a quasi greenfield type site, and in a good location.. We've seen more builds in Marda Loop where there is opposition to everything built.