News   Apr 03, 2020
 6.1K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 4.5K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

Screenshot 2025-03-07 at 9.20.38 PM.png


I don't know if its enough of a bottleneck in the building process, but it could probably save a decent chunk of time and money if enough prefab elements can become more ubiquitous...and perhaps they could integrate even more items like electrical/plumbing into each prefab piece? Or ability to achieve more scale on certain materials?
 
So what's the point of these?
So the Feds can in the future tell a city: no more grants unless your bespoke zoning code accommodates these plans on at least X% of lots, to stop municipalities from gaming their code to not allow housing while claiming the opposite.

A secondary thing would be with newer developers. Maybe the first project as a new developer is substantially derisked by assured permitting, and lower price with lower professional fees, and everything reducing the length of time capital is needed.
 
Not exactly a construction update, more of a validation of the recent work Leonard Development Group has done in Marda Loop.

Bella's patio was full and there was a 30 minute lineup to get a sandwich at Bonjour. Consistent stream of people. Marda Loop Brewing's patio was full as well.

Starting to become quite the destination.


20250308_124044.jpg
20250308_124103.jpg
 
Between Leonard Group's work and the city removing those telephone poles, 34th has improved leaps and bonds as a retail corridor, and TBH, I prefer it to 33rd ave.

The way things are shaping up, 33rd will be the dense busy corridor, and 34th will be the funky chill corridor. Together Marda Loop is really coming on strong.
 
Those 4-plexes - ooof
I think the building catalogue is a good idea (as mentioned, derisk developments -- especially for newer/smaller builders but also in smaller markets where missing middle units aren't going up all the time). And there's a lot of good in them; a good mix of bedrooms, accessible ground-floor units. But the AB units look like the worst-designed of the group; here are the MB/SK and Atlantic fourplexes, both about the same size as AB Fourplex 01:
1741652439901.jpeg
1741652720840.jpeg

The AB fourplex 01 has four 2 BR units with nearly identical layouts (the AB units are almost all just mirrored front and back; really lazy-seeming designs. I'm glad the AB architect is Edmonton-based). The MB/SK one has two different sized one-bedrooms on the main floor, one larger with walk-in closet and ensuite that seems much more marketable, and then a smaller near-studio that could be more affordable, with two 2-BR plus den units above. The Atlantic one has four unique floorplans -- one unit with a large BR and one with two small BR (and a tiny bathroom) on ground, a second floor with a 3 BR unit and the living/dining of a unit with 2 BR on the third floor along with a nice little rooftop terrace.

I know that everyone thinks their local climate requires special snowflake designs, but I suspect most of the designs could be built in most places. (The territories do have really unique challenges that do require some different designs.) Especially if the premise is that Victoria and Prince George have the same cllimate but not west and east Lloydminister. I think that this was a bit of a missed opportunity; rather than having 6 architects do 7 designs each to represent their regions, it would have been a better use of the same resources to have the architects do 5 or 6 designs each, then use the rest of the budget to evaluate each other's designs, and determine if they would work in their areas as-is, if they could be done with small modifications (e.g. bedroom windows need to be 2" wider here, or change the front door to a French door to meet Bill 96), or if they need substantial modifications (the staircase turn is too sharp, which wound require redesigning the main floor to move the staircase). There would then be a library of maybe 30 designs including a bigger range (AB doesn't have a triplex or stacked townhouses, for example; on the other hand, AB rowhouse 01 is by far the smallest and could fit weird shaped lots). And in most places maybe 20 if the designs would work as-is or with a slight alternate plan.
 
Not exactly a construction update, more of a validation of the recent work Leonard Development Group has done in Marda Loop.

Bella's patio was full and there was a 30 minute lineup to get a sandwich at Bonjour. Consistent stream of people. Marda Loop Brewing's patio was full as well.

Starting to become quite the destination.


View attachment 635201 View attachment 635202

Counterpoint: fotze says traffic is a nightmare in the area.
 
So the Feds can in the future tell a city: no more grants unless your bespoke zoning code accommodates these plans on at least X% of lots, to stop municipalities from gaming their code to not allow housing while claiming the opposite.

A secondary thing would be with newer developers. Maybe the first project as a new developer is substantially derisked by assured permitting, and lower price with lower professional fees, and everything reducing the length of time capital is needed.
Let's see how many of these types of units are built in the Annex
 
The Feds continuing to be oblivious to the affordable housing crisis. Supply chains are already strained with the record amount of housing development and investors have turned zoning into a commodity. It's laughable to acknowledge inspiration from the post war program which built small bungalows on cheap farmland. Any property zoned for intensification is too costly to build small scale multi-family affordably.

The market is not interested in building enough supply to lower prices as it's the opposite of their best interests.

Interest rates rise with high inflation. Building more housing is just heating the market even more. Stronger regulations on outside investors and a pause on the record number of people coming into Canada is the analogous interest rate rise
 
Last edited:
The Feds continuing to be oblivious to the affordable housing crisis. Supply chains are already strained with the record amount of housing development and investors have turned zoning into a commodity. It's laughable to acknowledge inspiration from the post war program which built small bungalows on cheap farmland. Any property zoned for intensification is too costly to build small scale multi-family affordably.

The market is not interested in building enough supply to lower prices as it's the opposite of their best interests.

Interest rates rise with high inflation. Building more housing is just heating the market even more. Stronger regulations on outside investors and a pause on the record number of people coming into Canada is the analogous interest rate rise
There isn't a record amount of housing development. There was a near record amount of housing starts in a single year. Adjusted for population, it was nowhere near record.
1741798678565.png


The key there is 'any property zoned'. That is likely true in Toronto and Vancouver, where developers have to thread that needle due to exceedingly low number of entitled properties. Good thing we can just change that, and the federal government has required that through housing accelerator agreements.

The market is interested in building supply to lower prices. There is no market power for developers to exercise in housing construction. The barrier to new entrants is low. The only market power exercised is by municipalities via zoning. The market can make more money by delivering more units. People act like somehow developers are like BMW and somehow they stop Hyundai from existing. It is lazy, Marxist-inspired (I won't call it Marxist, at least he had real economic arguments to make) thesis making that spreads in planning schools, that has really hurt many cities over the last 30 years.

That you think building more housing causes prices to go up, is a tell. That somehow, you believe, that housing is unique and not subject to supply and demand.
 
I think the building catalogue is a good idea (as mentioned, derisk developments -- especially for newer/smaller builders but also in smaller markets where missing middle units aren't going up all the time). And there's a lot of good in them; a good mix of bedrooms, accessible ground-floor units. But the AB units look like the worst-designed of the group; here are the MB/SK and Atlantic fourplexes, both about the same size as AB Fourplex 01:
View attachment 635803View attachment 635804
The AB fourplex 01 has four 2 BR units with nearly identical layouts (the AB units are almost all just mirrored front and back; really lazy-seeming designs. I'm glad the AB architect is Edmonton-based). The MB/SK one has two different sized one-bedrooms on the main floor, one larger with walk-in closet and ensuite that seems much more marketable, and then a smaller near-studio that could be more affordable, with two 2-BR plus den units above. The Atlantic one has four unique floorplans -- one unit with a large BR and one with two small BR (and a tiny bathroom) on ground, a second floor with a 3 BR unit and the living/dining of a unit with 2 BR on the third floor along with a nice little rooftop terrace.

I know that everyone thinks their local climate requires special snowflake designs, but I suspect most of the designs could be built in most places. (The territories do have really unique challenges that do require some different designs.) Especially if the premise is that Victoria and Prince George have the same cllimate but not west and east Lloydminister. I think that this was a bit of a missed opportunity; rather than having 6 architects do 7 designs each to represent their regions, it would have been a better use of the same resources to have the architects do 5 or 6 designs each, then use the rest of the budget to evaluate each other's designs, and determine if they would work in their areas as-is, if they could be done with small modifications (e.g. bedroom windows need to be 2" wider here, or change the front door to a French door to meet Bill 96), or if they need substantial modifications (the staircase turn is too sharp, which wound require redesigning the main floor to move the staircase). There would then be a library of maybe 30 designs including a bigger range (AB doesn't have a triplex or stacked townhouses, for example; on the other hand, AB rowhouse 01 is by far the smallest and could fit weird shaped lots). And in most places maybe 20 if the designs would work as-is or with a slight alternate plan.
I agree with your observations. I don't quite understand the regional design separation (apart from the territories). Especially since many of the policy differences can be found in the municipal level and not just provincial. I hope to see the designs being applied across the different regions.
 
I agree with your observations. I don't quite understand the regional design separation (apart from the territories). Especially since many of the policy differences can be found in the municipal level and not just provincial. I hope to see the designs being applied across the different regions.
To remove objections that 'that wouldn't work here' more than anything. IMO this is all set up for the next round for Housing Accelerator.
 

Back
Top